The Court is unaware of any ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of "process" that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article.Need to skim the concurrences as although the Court is unanimous to outcome, they're not all agreed on the details.
[...]
(c) Section 101 [of the Patent Act] similarly precludes a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods.
Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years.Maybe those restrictions are insufficient but it's not like they're selling them at the 7-11 or something.
Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.
Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. See also id., (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id.; see also id., (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense). (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”Everything starts and ends with that self-defense claim, not commonality: automatic weapons will be barred because they're more useful for offense than defense, and tazers and others less-lethal methods like pepper spray could be found to be 2A protected because of their self-defense value as well. Frankly, I wonder what will happen to restrictions on knives and blade lengths under Heller/McDonald.
SPELLMAN: How would the Muslim Mosque Inc. handle a Birmingham, Danville, or Cambridge—what do you think should have been done?He made clear the price white Americans would pay if it refused to accede to black Americans' legitimate demands.
MALCOLM X: In Birmingham, since the government has proven itself either unable or unwilling to step in and find those who are guilty and bring them to justice, it becomes necessary for the so-called Negro who was the victim to do this himself, and he would be upholding his constitutional rights by so doing, and Article 2 of the constitution—it says concerning the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Negroes don't realize this, that they are within their constitutional rights to own a rifle, to own a shotgun, and when the bigoted white supremacists realize that they are dealing with Negroes who are ready to give their lives in defense of life and property, then these bigoted whites will change their whole strategy and their whole attitude.
A well-informed, educated, and literate public being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.No one could reasonably argue that, under such a construction, the right to free speech or religion was meant to be limited as a collective right and that individuals did not specifically have the right to free speech. It would be ridiculous. This is similar; the amendment does not say that well-regulated militias must be allowed to keep and bear arms, it says that the people must be. That's what the Bill of Rights is about; individual liberties. It strikes me as disingenuous to argue that the other 9 amendments are all about individual liberties but they decided to throw one collective right in the mix. As number two right after freedome of speech no less.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.However, this has largely been interpreted as supplying no specific rights or restrictions on the interpretation of the rest of the document. No one ever says that the 1st Amendment ought to be interpreted within the limits of "domestic tranquility," for instance.
"that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."Madison's proposal called for this right and the right to freedom of the press, religion, and speech, to be inserted in Article 1, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. Article 1, Section 9 concerns limitations on Congress's power over citizens, namely, no suspension of habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, and no bills of attainder. Madison's suggested placement of this amendment demonstrates that he understood the right to bear arms to be an individual right. Had Madison viewed the right as the states' right, the more logical placement of the right would have been in Article 1, Section 8, clause 16, which reserves to the states the power to appoint the officers of the militia and provides authority to train the same.
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.In the House, the debate focused on the last clause. The argument was as follows:
Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.An amendment to remove the "religiously scrupulous" language failed. Madison yielded to pressure to set forth amendments at the end of the Constitution. Seventeen articles of amendment were sent to the Senate.
« Older “There is one line in ‘Zero Hour!’ where a steward... | The State of the Internet Oper... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 7:43 AM on June 28, 2010 [8 favorites]