So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by Corlyss_D » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:09 am

Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out? Too bad the survivors can't sue the ACLU for 40 years worth of frivolous privacy cases that have rendered society, particularly educational institutions, completely incapable of protecting itself from crazies like Cho. Once upon a time, we could lock them up and throw away the key. Now, they are free to roam the streets armed with rights they have no use for except to ruin the lives of others. It's not by your intentions you are judged, but by your results.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:22 am

Corlyss_D wrote:Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out? Too bad the survivors can't sue the ACLU for 40 years worth of frivolous privacy cases that have rendered society, particularly educational institutions, completely incapable of protecting itself from crazies like Cho. Once upon a time, we could lock them up and throw away the key. Now, they are free to roam the streets armed with rights they have no use for except to ruin the lives of others.
Do I have to say it? Including the right to buy two deadly handguns in a simple over-the-counter transaction.

Aside from that obvious riposte (you are off form, Corlyss, you usually do better than this), there was never a time when such as Cho would have been pre-emptively "locked up and the key thrown away." True paranoid schizophrenics are about the only class of people who were once so but no longer are.

And finally, nobody is going to be sued over this one, not even in the good old USA. At least not beyond the extent of a frivolous suit. I'm more concerned about how universities, which must maintain open campuses, are going to deal with the fallout from this. We can't have US higher education doing its own version of what the US government under Bush has tried to do since 9/11. I can (barely) face not being able to just walk into and around West Point anymore, but I don't think I could take it if the same happened at Princeton.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by Corlyss_D » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:54 am

jbuck919 wrote:True paranoid schizophrenics are about the only class of people who were once so but no longer are.
That's what the profilers are saying Cho was.
And finally, nobody is going to be sued over this one, not even in the good old USA. At least not beyond the extent of a frivolous suit.


Would ye care to be placin' a wee wager on that?
I'm more concerned about how universities, which must maintain open campuses, are going to deal with the fallout from this
Why, the answer is obvious. I've been saying in several posts. The authorities need to stop making schools shooting galleries. The uncertainty of resistence is the best deterrent. Ask any American burglar why he robs in daylight rather than night, which is favored by burglars in states with strict gun laws. As long as killers are certain they will encounter no resistence, there will continue to be mass murder, by gun or by bomb, at schools. As long as privacy laws prevent society from protecting itself, Chos will appear regularly.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by pizza » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:18 am

Corlyss_D wrote:Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out?
Cho's estate.

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by pizza » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:37 am

jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out? Too bad the survivors can't sue the ACLU for 40 years worth of frivolous privacy cases that have rendered society, particularly educational institutions, completely incapable of protecting itself from crazies like Cho. Once upon a time, we could lock them up and throw away the key. Now, they are free to roam the streets armed with rights they have no use for except to ruin the lives of others.
Do I have to say it? Including the right to buy two deadly handguns in a simple over-the-counter transaction.
A handgun or other appropriate weapon in the hands of a trained instructor or student could have prevented the tragedy. Try to understand that simple, obvious and incontrovertable fact. :idea:

Opus132
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:42 am

Post by Opus132 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:47 am

You forgot Counterstrike as a possible target. As we all know, it's the video games that made him into a cold blooded murderer..

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:50 am

There is always the likelihood of lawsuits in a situation like this. The Columbine murders sparked numerous actions by victims and their families and those suits were settled. To predict that these actions will be brought here requires no great acumen.

As is too often the case, Corlyss trivializes the gravity of this tragedy by taking a swipe at the ACLU which does not argue and never has that the issue of guns should not be regulated through the democratic process. The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."

There is no rational basis in suggesting an action against either Cho's family or the gun manufacturer or dealer who made the sale. While Klebold and Harris's parents were sued, and there was a colorable case, it was based on ngeligence in that they actually knew the imminent dangerousness of their minor sons who lived with them (that, of course, is a fact question). Klebold and Harris were minors and any relatives of Cho had zero legal obligation to a man living as an adult on a college campus.

As to the gun manufacturers, the weapons were not so-called "Saturday Night Specials" but standard products. No duty was owed by the manufacturers to anyone.

As to the dealer, it appears that the sale to Cho was in full conformity with Virginia law and that constitutes a full defense.

Readers who care about what happened in Virginia should understand the difference between Corlyss's loose assertion that suits can be brought - God is regularly named a defendant in lawsuits after hurricanes and floods - but whether such actions have any merit.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:05 am

Ralph wrote: The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."
Many historians and constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution doesn't "confer" rights; rather, it protects pre-existing rights by acting as a restriction on governmental interference with rights – rights that pre-exist both the government and the Constitution.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:10 am

pizza wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out? Too bad the survivors can't sue the ACLU for 40 years worth of frivolous privacy cases that have rendered society, particularly educational institutions, completely incapable of protecting itself from crazies like Cho. Once upon a time, we could lock them up and throw away the key. Now, they are free to roam the streets armed with rights they have no use for except to ruin the lives of others.
Do I have to say it? Including the right to buy two deadly handguns in a simple over-the-counter transaction.
A handgun or other appropriate weapon in the hands of a trained instructor or student could have prevented the tragedy. Try to understand that simple, obvious and incontrovertable fact. :idea:

And you try to understand this: I don't want to be surrounded by classmates and professors I know are armed even if it would prevent Armageddon. I'll take the risk of Armageddon, thank you.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:13 am

Ralph wrote:Readers who care about what happened in Virginia should understand the difference between Corlyss's loose assertion that suits can be brought - God is regularly named a defendant in lawsuits after hurricanes and floods - but whether such actions have any merit.
I didn't get the impression by reading Corlyss' initial post that she was asserting anything other than the liklihood of a spate of frivolous lawsuits. She's probably right.

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by pizza » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:15 am

jbuck919 wrote:
pizza wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out? Too bad the survivors can't sue the ACLU for 40 years worth of frivolous privacy cases that have rendered society, particularly educational institutions, completely incapable of protecting itself from crazies like Cho. Once upon a time, we could lock them up and throw away the key. Now, they are free to roam the streets armed with rights they have no use for except to ruin the lives of others.
Do I have to say it? Including the right to buy two deadly handguns in a simple over-the-counter transaction.
A handgun or other appropriate weapon in the hands of a trained instructor or student could have prevented the tragedy. Try to understand that simple, obvious and incontrovertable fact. :idea:

And you try to understand this: I don't want to be surrounded by classmates and professors I know are armed even if it would prevent Armageddon. I'll take the risk of Armageddon, thank you.
You're welcome. Just don't take it when I'm around.

Harvested Sorrow
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:32 pm
Contact:

Post by Harvested Sorrow » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:40 pm

We've all forgotten one group who will probably be sued:

Guns 'n' Roses

One of his plays was based off of a Guns 'n' Roses song (Mr. Brownstone) so they're no doubt going to attempt to scapegaot that evil rock music for driving him to this....never mind that that song is used as a form of stress relief when people who listen to the band are frustrated. :roll:

On the other hand, Axl Rose always did love controversy so maybe he'll actually finish and put out the new piece of shi --....new album that a few dedicated fans have been waiting on for the past eight years or so so he can cash in on the tragedy and the controversy.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:07 pm

Ralph wrote:Corlyss trivializes the gravity of this tragedy by taking a swipe at the ACLU
No, I'm taking a swipe at the ACLU because their obsession with individual rights is largely responsible for the inability of society to defend itself from quite a few threats, including crazies like Cho. That's not trivializing. It's asking the fundamental question, "have we gone too far with this privacy nonsense in an age where millions expose their entire lives on youtube? Are we going to continue to deny society the protection the state owes it on the flimsy excuse that a crazy man's right to privacy trumps the rights of his potential victims?" It's a lot easier to keep these guys under lock and key once they are identified, as Cho was not once but many times, than it is to justify refusing intervention.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

anasazi
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: Sarasota Florida

Post by anasazi » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:31 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:Corlyss trivializes the gravity of this tragedy by taking a swipe at the ACLU
No, I'm taking a swipe at the ACLU because their obsession with individual rights is largely responsible for the inability of society to defend itself from quite a few threats, including crazies like Cho. That's not trivializing. It's asking the fundamental question, "have we gone too far with this privacy nonsense in an age where millions expose their entire lives on youtube? Are we going to continue to deny society the protection the state owes it on the flimsy excuse that a crazy man's right to privacy trumps the rights of his potential victims?" It's a lot easier to keep these guys under lock and key once they are identified, as Cho was not once but many times, than it is to justify refusing intervention.
That sounds good, but really, what crime did this guy commit previously, that he could have been under lodk and key? Do you advocate incarcerating all the mentally ill or something? Is psychology so good now that we can really say who is homicidal and who is not?
"Take only pictures, leave only footprints" - John Muir.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:00 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:Corlyss trivializes the gravity of this tragedy by taking a swipe at the ACLU
No, I'm taking a swipe at the ACLU because their obsession with individual rights is largely responsible for the inability of society to defend itself from quite a few threats
Your typical fundie mullah couldn't have said it any better.

And Corlyss, would they retain their 2nd Amendment rights while in the hospital? If not. why do we have to put them away? Couldn't we just say, "Hey, YOU! Yeah, we mean YOU, buddy! You're no longer entitled to 2nd Amendment rights and we're gonna put ya in the database for that," and then let him go?

Your proposal strikes me as precisely the kind of government oppression the gun nutz say the 2nd Amendment is designed to help people fight against.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:02 pm

Perhaps Corlysss has come up with a novel approach. The Nazis used the term "protective custody" for people thay wanted to put away - whether permanently or for some temporary period.

Now, to protect a community that's not privileged to be independently armed according to gun lobby standards, why not PREVENTIVE CUSTODY?

We could have an interesting discussion among our legal experts on the pros and cons of this issue.
Werner Isler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:44 pm

pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote: The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."
Many historians and constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution doesn't "confer" rights; rather, it protects pre-existing rights by acting as a restriction on governmental interference with rights – rights that pre-exist both the government and the Constitution.
*****

And very many others hold to John Marshall's statement, "We must not forget it is a Constitution that we are expounding." As his opinion in McCullogh v. Maryland strongly emphasizes, a constitution - THE Constitution - is not to be read narrowly as a statute often must be.

And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:48 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:Corlyss trivializes the gravity of this tragedy by taking a swipe at the ACLU
No, I'm taking a swipe at the ACLU because their obsession with individual rights is largely responsible for the inability of society to defend itself from quite a few threats, including crazies like Cho. That's not trivializing. It's asking the fundamental question, "have we gone too far with this privacy nonsense in an age where millions expose their entire lives on youtube? Are we going to continue to deny society the protection the state owes it on the flimsy excuse that a crazy man's right to privacy trumps the rights of his potential victims?" It's a lot easier to keep these guys under lock and key once they are identified, as Cho was not once but many times, than it is to justify refusing intervention.
*****

The ACLU has the power to litigate - it can decide nothing. Neither can a conservative legal defense fund. You attack the ACLU on the privacy issue which is a concern to mainstream Americans whatever their political affiliation or ideology. The growing resistance to the so-called "Real ID" is an example of concerns crossing partisan lines.

That is not to say that every decision of a court, every legislative act, every administrative measure addressing privacy issues is wise or even workable. But the issue goes far beyond the maelstrom of comment the Virginia Tech horror has engendered.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:27 pm

anasazi wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:Corlyss trivializes the gravity of this tragedy by taking a swipe at the ACLU
No, I'm taking a swipe at the ACLU because their obsession with individual rights is largely responsible for the inability of society to defend itself from quite a few threats, including crazies like Cho. That's not trivializing. It's asking the fundamental question, "have we gone too far with this privacy nonsense in an age where millions expose their entire lives on youtube? Are we going to continue to deny society the protection the state owes it on the flimsy excuse that a crazy man's right to privacy trumps the rights of his potential victims?" It's a lot easier to keep these guys under lock and key once they are identified, as Cho was not once but many times, than it is to justify refusing intervention.
That sounds good, but really, what crime did this guy commit previously, that he could have been under lodk and key?
Stalking is a crime in Virginia.

http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Virginia146

Kevin R
Posts: 1672
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:15 am
Location: MO

Post by Kevin R » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:54 pm

Ralph wrote:And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
The Framers would have been appalled at that statement. Since they believed in the Lockean theory, they understood rights do not come from men or government; they exist in our natural state. That is why they wanted to break away from English control, as the British government (men passing laws and declaring who received certain rights) was viewed as denying "unalienable Rights."

The Constitution (as Pizza correctly points out) merely acknowledged our natural rights. The Framers (and this was their genius) wanted to include such rights into a document, though they knew all of them could not (and should not) be listed. So the Founding generation clearly recognized that rights do not come from the SC or the government, they existed long before either was created.

Since Marshall was invoked, let us also recall his comment in Ogden v. Saunders. He stated that all individuals retain the right “to acquire property, to dispose of that property according to his own judgment, and to pledge himself for a future act. These rights are not given by society, but are brought to it.” The right of property is not given to us by men, it is a natural right which government was instituted to protect.

When natural rights have been ignored, we have seen the deplorable results. When men alone (often ruled by prejudice) declare (in this case the SC) who should and should not receive rights, we get Dred Scott, we get Plessy, and we get Buck v. Bell. And has anyone put the necessity of natural law better than Dr. King in the Birmingham letter?
"Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a government can confer on a people, is in almost every country unpopular."

-Thomas Macaulay

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:12 pm

Kevin R wrote:
Ralph wrote:And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
The Framers would have been appalled at that statement. Since they believed in the Lockean theory, they understood rights do not come from men or government; they exist in our natural state. That is why they wanted to break away from English control, as the British government (men passing laws and declaring who received certain rights) was viewed as denying "unalienable Rights."

The Constitution (as Pizza correctly points out) merely acknowledged our natural rights. The Framers (and this was their genius) wanted to include such rights into a document, though they knew all of them could not (and should not) be listed. So the Founding generation clearly recognized that rights do not come from the SC or the government, they existed long before either was created.

Since Marshall was invoked, let us also recall his comment in Ogden v. Saunders. He stated that all individuals retain the right “to acquire property, to dispose of that property according to his own judgment, and to pledge himself for a future act. These rights are not given by society, but are brought to it.” The right of property is not given to us by men, it is a natural right which government was instituted to protect.

When natural rights have been ignored, we have seen the deplorable results. When men alone (often ruled by prejudice) declare (in this case the SC) who should and should not receive rights, we get Dred Scott, we get Plessy, and we get Buck v. Bell. And has anyone put the necessity of natural law better than Dr. King in the Birmingham letter?
*****

Natural Rights jurisprudence is one school - there are others. And I have no idea if the Framers would or would not be appalled by what I posted.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Kevin R
Posts: 1672
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:15 am
Location: MO

Post by Kevin R » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:40 am

Ralph wrote:
Kevin R wrote:
Ralph wrote:And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
The Framers would have been appalled at that statement. Since they believed in the Lockean theory, they understood rights do not come from men or government; they exist in our natural state. That is why they wanted to break away from English control, as the British government (men passing laws and declaring who received certain rights) was viewed as denying "unalienable Rights."

The Constitution (as Pizza correctly points out) merely acknowledged our natural rights. The Framers (and this was their genius) wanted to include such rights into a document, though they knew all of them could not (and should not) be listed. So the Founding generation clearly recognized that rights do not come from the SC or the government, they existed long before either was created.

Since Marshall was invoked, let us also recall his comment in Ogden v. Saunders. He stated that all individuals retain the right “to acquire property, to dispose of that property according to his own judgment, and to pledge himself for a future act. These rights are not given by society, but are brought to it.” The right of property is not given to us by men, it is a natural right which government was instituted to protect.

When natural rights have been ignored, we have seen the deplorable results. When men alone (often ruled by prejudice) declare (in this case the SC) who should and should not receive rights, we get Dred Scott, we get Plessy, and we get Buck v. Bell. And has anyone put the necessity of natural law better than Dr. King in the Birmingham letter?
*****

Natural Rights jurisprudence is one school - there are others. And I have no idea if the Framers would or would not be appalled by what I posted.
We can read their writings, which will give us a pretty clear indication of what they would have thought.
"Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a government can confer on a people, is in almost every country unpopular."

-Thomas Macaulay

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:46 am

Ralph wrote:
pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote: The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."
Many historians and constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution doesn't "confer" rights; rather, it protects pre-existing rights by acting as a restriction on governmental interference with rights – rights that pre-exist both the government and the Constitution.
*****

And very many others hold to John Marshall's statement, "We must not forget it is a Constitution that we are expounding." As his opinion in McCullogh v. Maryland strongly emphasizes, a constitution - THE Constitution - is not to be read narrowly as a statute often must be.

And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
However you read the Constitution, the rights it mentions existed before its adoption. For example, the right of self-defense always existed. The Constitution didn't confer it. If someone attacks me with a gun, I don't need the Constitution to tell me that I can use a gun to defend myself.

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:58 pm

pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote:
pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote: The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."
Many historians and constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution doesn't "confer" rights; rather, it protects pre-existing rights by acting as a restriction on governmental interference with rights – rights that pre-exist both the government and the Constitution.
*****

And very many others hold to John Marshall's statement, "We must not forget it is a Constitution that we are expounding." As his opinion in McCullogh v. Maryland strongly emphasizes, a constitution - THE Constitution - is not to be read narrowly as a statute often must be.

And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
However you read the Constitution, the rights it mentions existed before its adoption. For example, the right of self-defense always existed. The Constitution didn't confer it. If someone attacks me with a gun, I don't need the Constitution to tell me that I can use a gun to defend myself.
*****

That's correct but the law of self-defense has undergone many changes in many jurisdictions over the past 30 or 40 years. The basic premise is easy to state - it gets more involved when the law is examined based on a factual hypothesis or incident.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

pizza
Posts: 5094
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:03 am

Post by pizza » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:11 am

Ralph wrote:
pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote:
pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote: The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."
Many historians and constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution doesn't "confer" rights; rather, it protects pre-existing rights by acting as a restriction on governmental interference with rights – rights that pre-exist both the government and the Constitution.
*****

And very many others hold to John Marshall's statement, "We must not forget it is a Constitution that we are expounding." As his opinion in McCullogh v. Maryland strongly emphasizes, a constitution - THE Constitution - is not to be read narrowly as a statute often must be.

And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
However you read the Constitution, the rights it mentions existed before its adoption. For example, the right of self-defense always existed. The Constitution didn't confer it. If someone attacks me with a gun, I don't need the Constitution to tell me that I can use a gun to defend myself.
*****

That's correct but the law of self-defense has undergone many changes in many jurisdictions over the past 30 or 40 years. The basic premise is easy to state - it gets more involved when the law is examined based on a factual hypothesis or incident.
Any changes the right of self-defense has encountered over the years are implementation details. The right itself has always remained intact.

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:20 am

pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote:
pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote:
pizza wrote:
Ralph wrote: The ACLU position on the Second Amendment is that it does not confer an unfettered right to bear arms and that view is taken by many historians and constitutional scholars, not necessarily those denominated as "liberals."
Many historians and constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution doesn't "confer" rights; rather, it protects pre-existing rights by acting as a restriction on governmental interference with rights – rights that pre-exist both the government and the Constitution.
*****

And very many others hold to John Marshall's statement, "We must not forget it is a Constitution that we are expounding." As his opinion in McCullogh v. Maryland strongly emphasizes, a constitution - THE Constitution - is not to be read narrowly as a statute often must be.

And rights simply do not exist until articulated by the Supreme Court. For example, the NRA may say there is a clear Second Amendment right to bear arms and others dispute that interpretation. Until the Court speaks, there is neither a right nor a denial of a right.
However you read the Constitution, the rights it mentions existed before its adoption. For example, the right of self-defense always existed. The Constitution didn't confer it. If someone attacks me with a gun, I don't need the Constitution to tell me that I can use a gun to defend myself.
*****

That's correct but the law of self-defense has undergone many changes in many jurisdictions over the past 30 or 40 years. The basic premise is easy to state - it gets more involved when the law is examined based on a factual hypothesis or incident.
Any changes the right of self-defense has encountered over the years are implementation details. The right itself has always remained intact.
*****

Depends what you're looking at. Take a gander, for example, at case law from the past couple of decades on "the duty to retreat to the wall." It's changed and that means what was not a self-defense right now is and vice versa.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Gregory Kleyn

Re: So Who Will Be Sued? The Pool Is Now Open

Post by Gregory Kleyn » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:38 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:Lessee:

1. VaTech and the professors who observed his erratic behavior without taking any action
2. The police who diddled around for 2 hours.
3. Cho's Parents (with the help of his grand mother who said he was a problem from childhood)
4. The gun dealer
5. The gun manufaturers

Did I leave anybody out?
Karl Rove?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests