O'Reilly falsely suggests "totalitarian" liberals are trying to overturn "270 years" of SCOTUS gun control precedent
After attacking liberal "totalitarians" for supporting a federal appellate court's ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments, Bill O'Reilly falsely suggested that "270 years" of Supreme Court precedent supports his position. In fact, the appellate court - including two conservative Reagan nominees - cited Supreme Court precedents dating to 1876 in their opinion.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From segments on the March 2 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor regarding the Supreme Court's hearing on National Rifle Association v. Chicago, in which the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Chicago ban on some handguns:
O'REILLY: But the city says [plaintiff Otis] McDonald has no right to have a handgun, thus the Supreme Court case. Incredibly, the very liberal New York Times, which is supposed to champion individual liberty, editorialized this today, quote: "The Bill of Rights once was largely thought to be a set of limitations on the federal government. Does the right to bear arms apply against city and state governments as well?"
Of course it does. Are you telling me the City of Chicago could restrict freedom of speech in violation of the Constitution? The case isn't even close. And I predict the court will rule 5 to 4 that Otis McDonald can own a handgun. But the four justices who would violate Mr. McDonald's rights are troubling. Because they don't like guns, they don't like the Second Amendment and, therefore, would restrict it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an assault on individual freedom. It's interesting that in America today the far left that wants the government to call the shots, not the folks. In the past, right-wing extremists like Hitler and Mussolini were in the forefront of state control. But with the exception of Burma, today's totalitarians are primarily on the left. Certainly that's the case in the U.S.A. "Talking Points" is not ready to say the Obama administration wants to deprive us of rights; that wouldn't be fair. There is a movement under way in this country led by so-called progressives that would restrict individual liberty. These people want the government to run the economy, to tell you how much you can and can't have, to force you to buy things like health insurance, and to take away things they don't approve of, like guns.
[...]
O'REILLY: [Mark] LeVine, if you look at the letters, and I have one by Thomas Jefferson -- I personally own it, OK? -- that they wanted individual -- you didn't have to be in a militia, you could have been a farmer. They wanted individuals to have protections against tyranny, which is what Mr. McDonald wants.
LEVINE: Bill --
O'REILLY: But I don't want to debate history.
LEVINE: That's not what's in the text of the Constitution. I just wanted to be clear here.
O'REILLY: Yes, it is. It is. It is in the text --
LEVINE: I'm a strict constructionist. You're the judicial activist here.
O'REILLY: -- as the Supreme Court has ruled for 270 years.
LEVINE: No, no, no, no, sir. They ruled that last year. They ruled that last year.
O'REILLY: Not all -- no. There have been challenges --
LEVINE: For 200 years they ruled the other way.
O'REILLY: -- all throughout our history.
Recent circuit court cases have upheld "settled law" that the Second Amendment only applies to federal gov't
7th Circuit cites precedent dating to 1876 in stating "The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states." The June 2, 2009, 7th Circuit per curiam opinion in NRA v. Chicago upheld a Chicago ban on some handguns, noting that the "Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states," citing several precedents dating back to 1876:
Two municipalities in Illinois ban the possession of most handguns. After the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), that the second amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self-protection, several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park. All were dismissed on the ground that Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state. The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). The district judge thought that only the Supreme Court may change course. 2008 U.S. Dist.
2nd Circuit similarly found it "settled law" that "the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose." In a January 28, 2009, per curiam opinion, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in Maloney v. Cuomo, "It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right," similarly citing 19th century precedent:
The Second Amendment provides: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II. The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008). It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state"); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding "that the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms' imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts" and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia's general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states).
Heller, which overturned a D.C. ban on handguns, "did not settle whether the [Second] Amendment" applies to states. The landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller overturned a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns. However, D.C. is a federal entity subject to federal law, and as Lyle Denniston noted on SCOTUSblog, in Heller, the Supreme Court "did not settle whether the [Second] Amendment operates against any level of government other than the federal government and a federal entity, the District of Columbia."
Conservative judges -- not just liberal "totalitarians" -- have upheld that Second Amendment only applies to federal gov't
Contrary to O'Reilly's suggestion that only "totalitarians ... primarily on the left" support the 7th Circuit's ruling in NRA v. Chicago, the ruling was joined by conservative Reagan appointees Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and Judge Richard Posner.
The Constitution grants rights to the Federal Government where initially they had no rights. Those rights not expressly granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states and the people.
Loved Jose3's, short, sweet and to the point.
Be careful or he'll report you a second time.
Most of the regulars here who do change their names have the balls to admit to it, not like the right wing trolls who come to disrupt and distract.
It would probably be accurate to refer to it as leftwingnut behavior.
If they only knew that I'm probably the last person that would flag their posts. I love the wingnut parade.
I liked that bit too, where he was asking if you were being disrespectful. After eight years of us being called every name in the book, he thinks we should be respectful.
But going over his post, he didn't say he'd report you, he said maybe you should be reported. Which implies he wants someone else to do his dirty work. That's the sign of a true bedwetter.
I wasn't aware that the Constitution granted rights to the government. I'd always seen it as acknowledging our rights as Americans, and putting some specific limits on what the government can do. Guess I'm a little "backwards".
Or he forgot which screen name he signed up under.
http://bit.ly/ch10Lg
Well worth the read
I am a much nicer person than he.
I was pointing out that the Constitution does not expressly give the Supreme Court the power (or the "right") to declare something unconstitutional. It is a matter of precedent set by the Supreme Court itself which gives it that power (or "right").
To your pointing out that the Supreme Court's power became official as a matter of precedence, I was responding that in order to have a conversation or arrive at any kind of conclusion (these days) you need a legal dictionary.
I was not yet born.
Government proposed take over of 1/6 or so of the economy is the biggest disregard of the Constitution today.
really? more so than warrentless wiretapping of american citizens? secret prisons and torture?
Also the Supremacy Clause states that the U.S. Constitution, and laws passed by Congress have precedence over state laws. Federal laws trump state laws every time.
The supremacy according to the Constitution goes:
1. We the People
2. Constitution
3. Federal
4. State
We the People, through the Constitution, grant rights to the federal and state governments with the states being under the federal.
Article V says
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
The amendment becomes PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
You should be reported.
Maybe you need to look up what a subset is.
The Bill of Rights were added to the first draft of the Constitution to make clear any ambiguities.
And stop your name calling.
Someone said "The Constitution doesn't give rights to anyone or any government. It lists rights that were assumed all people already had and that the government couldn't take away."
And in reply, YOU wrote "You are mistaking the Bill of Rights which is a subset of the Constitution."
But they were NOT wrong. They were NOT mistaken. Any amendment becomes PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, so when they said that something was in the Constitution, they were right. When you said they were making a mistake, YOU WERE WRONG.
Gosh, it must be embarrassing to be wrong so often, and then to scold me when it turns out that I was right? If you had any shame and any brains, your cheeks would be red right now.
You are a very scary person and a danger to liberty.
But, in a nutshell, the constitution LIMITS the power of the government over the people.
You're welcome.
That's not the way the story went.
Based on my observations of the rw, I don't think many of you actually know what you're talking about when you say you want limited government. As far as I can tell it always seems to be related to the size of the government. The issue is not the size of the government, but how efficient and functional it is in meeting the needs of its' citizens.
I don't see where that is prohibited.
I know about that place.
Now Scalia is trying rewrite the entire Bill of Rights. As of last year, the Second Amendment is the only one of the twelve paragraphs of the Bill of Rights to have a preamble. How exactly is that strict-constructionism?
If it was written this way would gun ownership be allowed only if the electorate was well fed? Or maybe it would only apply if they were happy. Or maybe they could only have guns if it was necessary to be happy.
Don't know how long that will last.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Period, proven over and over again.....
The second amendment should have been nullified with the formation of the armed forces.
I still enjoy watching old westerns on tv as much as I did as a kid, and that behavior seems to take place in the more fantastic and romantic movies. The flicks that seem more historically accurate are more likely to have a lawman or proprietor telling the cowpokes to check their guns at the door.
Good news for me. Now I can pack heat when I eat out on the Eastern Shore this summer.
Oh, that's only about choice that suites you huh? Funny, I'm betting abortion doesn't scare YOU?
You say your gun saved your life. Would you mind describing the circumstances? I'm not being a smart ass. I'm interested in why people feel the need to carry a gun and it sounds like you may actually have a good reason.
They prefer the easy meat that doesn't shoot back.
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
My guess is possessing or carrying a gun is not doing much to fix your constant fear of your fellow man, jose. That is a pschycological deficiency that cannot be fixed with a weapon.
Who told you that criminals move out of areas when guns are permitted to be concealed?
Who does the polling of the criminals, huh?
Maybe they'll be something on the census form this year, like "check this box if you're a criminal"?
Crime rates are reported every year and is easily compared to passage of concealed carry laws.
Your text to link here...
Here's one for you, Why do cops carry guns? To protect THEMSELVES...
CHOICE
No, but that's because the courts have held that the 14th Amendment made the limitation on federal government restrictions on speech also applicable to the states. Other rulings have incorporated other elements of the Bill of Rights in this manner. No ruling has ever incorporated the 2nd Amendment.
O'Reilly's ranting against totalitarians on the left is particularly bizarre, given what happened in the Bush administration, whose efforts to convert the presidency into a monstrous embryonic dictatorship met with wild, unrelenting applause from O'Reilly and the rest of the freedom-loving right. For 8 years, no fascist or quasi-fascist policy was fascist enough for them, and now, as that threat has somewhat diminished under another administration, they're suddenly very concerned about it.
Liberals have mostly dropped the gun-control thing, anyway, and wisely, in my opinion (it was always more of a city/country issue than liberal/conservative anyway). Leave the idiotic, dictatorial policies to the right.
1. The Constitution recognizes that all rights are held by the People.
2. Since the right to legislate guns was never granted, it can't be exercised.
3. The 14th amendment has been interpreted to mean that since the federal government can't interfere with a right neither can the states.
4. Thus gun laws at any level are by definition unconstitutional.
But, it did so a year ago, and the 2nd Amendment does indeed guarantee the fundamental individual right to keep & bear arms.
In the year since DC gun ban was found unconstitutional, the homicide rate in DC has dropped a whopping 25%
I expect that after Chicago's unconstitutional ban is tossed out this summer Chicago will also become a safer city....just like everywhere where the People have more guns.
"As of December 31, 2007 New York City had 494 reported homicides, down from 596 homicides in 2006. This marked the first year since in 1963 (when crime statistics were starting to be published) that this total was fewer than 500."
You imply that the homicide rate dropped in DC as a direct result of the gun decision by the Supreme Court. How does that explain the drop in New York City?
The murder rate in Philadelphia dropped 20% from 2007 to 2008.
Neither New york city or Philadelphia changed their gun laws.
The nations homicide rate has been dropping each of the last three years.
If you're going to use statistics to prove your case, don't pick and choose which stats you're going to use.
Cities are becoming safer all over the country. For your claim to be taken seriously, the DC crime rate has gone down because either people carrying weapons are stopping a lot of crime, or criminals are afraid of people who may be carrying.
Have you ever known any hard core, junkies? Most of the people murdered in our cities are dying as a result of drugs. There isn't much rationalizing going on in the mind of a drug addict or gang member protecting his corner "store". Many of the people who are being murdered in our cities are themselves players in the drug trade and gang life.
If your theory holds any water at all, it does not when it's applied to gangs and drugs, which are the main causes of homicide in the nations cities.
This is an important topic. I think it needsforstealing to be discussed by everyone involved. You don't help your cause by ginning up the stats, nor does anyone who starts with that macho "cold dead hands" BS.
I've read posts from several different "cowboys" recently who threaten to shoot anyone who steals from them or tries to take their guns. No one is proposing taking anyone's guns. And those claiming they'll shoot someone for stealing are obviously people who've never had a gun pointed at them or had to point one at another human being. To me their words sound cowardly.
Like the United States compared to the rest of the world. We have far more guns so there is far less crime and murder? Who are you trying to fool??
I expect that when Chicago's unconstitutional ban is tossed out this summer, we'll see Chicago's ridiculously high homicide rate fall as well and become closer to the rest of the country.
More guns = less crime.
You are free to back up what you say too.
Once in awhile Sadaam would go on a gassing campaign but all in all the country was very safe.
Now after being *liberated* the place is dangerous with a bunch of freedom crazed lunatics running around loose. The question is would you rather live under a repressive regime that is relatively safe or live in a state of freedom where the environment is much more dangerous?
How much do you value freedom? Is it worth the risk? Are you willing to give up your freedom for safety?
Some historians have pointed out that it was the Civil War (and later WW 1 and WW II) that took men out of the political picture (through death) and nurtured the nesting instincts of the women into the policies that we have today.
Over the past 100 years, men have become more like women, partly because a lot of the "real men" were killed in battle.
Women are definitely superior to men when it comes to most things such as being safe and cautious. When it comes to liberty, freedom and the dangers that come from it I think men have the edge.
This is not a statement of superiority of one over the other but a symptom of being wired differently.
Do you ever listen to yourself?
Let me guess, you consider yourself one of the last "real men", right?
We've survived as a species because when it mattered, men were able to be safe and cautious and at other times women have been able to fight for their families, our freedom and face dangers that you couldn't imagine.
You appear to be an intelligent guy, but your don't seem to understand what makes us human beings.
What makes us human beings is one woman and one man getting together and creating a balance of security and risk, something which many here have a problem.
Our Constitution is based on risk associated with freedom.
The conversion of men into women brought us the elastic money supply from the Federal Reserve so we could all be secure during times of recession and depression.
The President and Congress is trying to cram the nurturing security of health care down our throats.
Maybe our nest is going to be disturbed by global warming, oh no!
And God forbid, we can't have people running around with guns. We must treat them as irresponsible people and create a self fulfilling prophecy.
But then I look at the men who are the leaders on your side. Men like Limbaugh 4-F, O'Reilly 2-S, Gingrich 2-S, Rove 2-S, Bush ANG and Cheney 2-S, 2-S, 3-A. Men who supported others taking "risks" at the same time they refused to "risk" .
You're being led and lectured to by people who don't live up to your standards.
Your theory, though interesting, disregards the contributions of women to human society. It writes them off as weak accessories, not equal partners in the evolutionary process.
Your spiel may pass for reasoned and deep on Rightwing sites but here you come across as an ideologue pushing an agenda and disregarding any logic to "prove" a coward's (Limbaugh's) theory of our society.
I am strongly against Prohibition. The people that you say are on my side are against freedoms that I value. George Washington wrote in his diary how he looked forward to the hemp harvest in September.
People like Beck selectively pick which liberties I am entitled.
Don't use your cookie cutter mentality on me.
It's OK for you to assume that everyone on the left is a drug addled, pacifist, who believes that all of the guns should be rounded up. You'd be surprised that the stereotypical leftist is a cartoon, just like the stereotypical rightist.
You assume you know us yet squeal when someone stereotypes you.
Now I understand.
Which do you value more, freedom or security?
Where do you want the country to go, more freedom or more security?
And where in the world did you come up with the statement that I assume everyone on the left is drug addled?
What I've been trying to say is that it goes both ways. We come in all shapes, sizes and ideologies, just like the people on the other side.
Because we disagree on certain things, you accuse us of being weak. You'd be surprised if you knew how many of us have fought along side and witnessed those "real men" you speak of, draw their last breath.
I said I am strongly against Prohibition, something both political parties want.
And I am against flushing the freedom that "real men" gave their life for down the toilet.
I'm a risk taker by inclination. I'd as soon not draw anyone else into my risks.
So what do you feel about the Patriot Act, and warrentless wiretapping?
Granted it is abused and perhaps even more likely to be bought given the SCOTUS's green light to corporate monies in politics.
Public campaign financing is a good idea to seriously limit this.
All governments that follow this path end up as either a fascist or a socialist tyranny.
State governments can't infringe upon rights granted in the Constitution. Period. An outright ban on something as basic as a handgun is unquestionably unconstitutional.
Are you really sure you want every one of "the people" to have the unassailable right to pack heat? Or is your concern really that just an example of that great American pastime: Making sure that it's always someone else's life, liberty or happiness that gives way, and never your own?
.
There's no point in arguing between banning and not banning handguns. It's perfectly clear what the Founders intended.
Do you feel they'd properly visualized life in the 21st century.
I know lots of good people with guns. Myself, never owned one, never been in a situation where I thought, "Boy if I only had a handgun."
I think you would thrive under tyranny. Someone else could do the carrying of guns for you. While they are at it, they can do your thinking too.
A rifle is a handgun with a longer barrel and a bigger stock.
Are you suggesting we arm all of the minorities whose career choices, choice of neighborhoods, pay and places they can go on vacation have been limited by racism?
I don't usually interpret what Jefferson and the others envisioned, but I doubt they could imagine 350,000,000 citizens armed to the teeth interacting with each other every day.
No one is saying round up all of the guns. We're saying that guns are a problem in our society. Arming all of the law abiding citizens in the country won't do much to stop drug and gang violence. Many of those killed in our cities are themselves kids who are carrying guns. The problem seems to be the availability of guns, not the arming of the populous.
There are some places where there is no limit on the number of firearms one can purchase. I don't see a problem placing a limit on the number of guns purchased by a person each month. I don't see how that goes against what you think the founding fathers intended.
It is the erosion of liberty that fuels violence through austerity.
The drug business has more firepower than the police do in our cities. Arming the innocent people living in drug infested areas would result in even more innocent lives lost.
I've explained my feelings over and over again on why i think more guns in our cities won't do anything but increase the death toll.
You offer talking points but don't explain how ending prohibition will stop drug violence.
How does ending prohibition work in the City of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania where there are fewer restrictions on gun sales and ownership?
It is the government that is responsible for the high profit in drugs, just as the price of guns would go up if they were made illegal.
Such tryants as I've encounterred tend to find me causing them to break out in a rash.
Is that a rifle in your pants, or have you had a crippling problem in that leg?
I've put 26,000 miles on that red thing that shows up with my posts. I can't imagine how that would fit with the images your trying to make of me.
Even if that is correct (and I can't see anything in the constituition which supports that assertion), you still have two problems:
You were arguing that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed by a State. In other words, that a State cannot stop anyone from having guns, anywhere, at any time.
Now you are saying a State can infringe the right, but only for scary scary murderers. Or are there other classes of people you and the founding fathers can agree on?
You mentioned cold-blooded killers. What about other types of convicts? White-collar non-violent crims? Are you cool with them having guns, while in jail? What about before they are convicted? In the police cells? What about a suspected jay-walker, in the dock in some courthouse. Can she park her Tec 9 menacingly on the bible she just swore her oath on?
Either a State can ban 5 year olds from having guns, or it cannot. Which is it? If guns can be banned from a schoolground, why can't a community like Chicagoans ban guns from their borders?
You either need to modify your argument, or abandon it. You can't have it both ways.
"Arms" is not specified in the 2nd amendment. Should private citizens be allowed to possess army tanks? Fighter jets? All nature of bombs? Develop weapons of mass destruction?
Should there be limitations on who can possess a firearm, like restrictions on age, criminal history, mental fitness, etc?
These are all very common sense ideas. Any rational person can realize that we need logical gun control laws. Duh. Liberals don't want to round up all the guns and lock 'em up and not let anyone have them. What some liberals do want is common sense regulations.
Your text to link here...
I am a Benjamin too, by the way. Great name.
2. I believe you should go with what the purpose for the arms was. It was to repel tyrants and protect individual freedom. Using that criteria are you prepared to protect yourself from your own government like the colonials were? Our potentially tyrannical government has tanks, fighter jets, bombs, and WMD. What do you have to protect your rights?
3. Yes there are limits on who can own guns built right into the constitution. If you violate someone's rights, your rights can be violated by due process of law. As for age and mental fitness, those are already limiting factors in law. Rights are diminished in direct proportion to the capacity to be responsible.
4. Yes, some liberals want common sense regulations, others just want to take away everyone's right to defend themselves.
As I keep saying: You can't have it both ways.
Either States can "infringe" the right to bear arms, or they cannot.
It's not matter of folks approving of the infringement in some cases and disapproving in other cases.
The claim being made is that States cannot infringe, period. So, which is it gonna be?
.
The Constitution was designed to prevent this from happening.