I know precisely what Burger said; I'm the only one here who actually quoted his PBS interview (and the earlier Parade commentary). I have only asked
you to explain what
you think Burger said.
You assigned the "fraud" characterization to anyone who speaks for the gun rights side and
you also claimed that what
you believe Burger's "fraud" characterization to be, is "shared" by the
Heller dissents. That's the "harping" I speak of , the bald claims and kooky accusations that
you have made, employing Burger's "fraud" term as a cudgel -- without ever explaining what exactly the "fraud" is to
you.
Those goalposts getting heavy yet? You can't really be that dense can you, standing is decided before the merits of the case are even briefed / heard.
What does the denial of standing tell us?
During the heyday of the "state's right" in the lower federal courts, the 9th Circuit was famous for just denying standing to any person trying to raise a 2nd Amendment claim in their jurisdiction. Since
Hickman v Block held the right protected by the 2ndA was a right of California to organize and operate their state militia, no citizen had standing to claim the 2nd Amendment's protections in that Circuit. The court didn't need to examine the "meaning" or "scope" of the right, they eliminated the right from being claimed by individual citizens.
SCOTUS on the other hand, having never embraced either the "state's right" or "militia right" interpretations, the assumption is that the right is a pre-existing, not granted by the 2nd Amendment individual right and any individual can raise a claim, even citizens who have had the right disabled like felons -- see
Lewis v US, 1980).
Yes, I have been asking
you to provide
your "take" on Burger's statement.
You throw the word "fraud" around as if
you have a particular belief in what Burger is speaking of;
you apply it generally to "gun nuts" but what specifically does it mean, to
you?
No, I disagreed with
you saying the
Heller dissents "shared" Burger's assignment of the word "fraud" to the individual right interpretation.
My disagreement is with
you, not Burger . . . Burger is off on his own, as I said,"frozen in time" with no relevance to the current legal reality. His incoherent utterances are all but forgotten, only to be resuscitated by doofuses like you on message boards.
You are the one bringing him into the present,
you are the one breathing life into his defunct ideas,
you are the one using Burger's words as a club . . . But
you don't have the integrity or the ability to tell me what
you think those words mean. That's just pathetic.
Well, I know the
Heller dissenting Justices said that the individual right interpretation was the correct one, that it was the one represented in all three opinions issued that day in June, 2008, and I know the dissenters said that the individual right interpretation was the interpretation that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court's precedent.
Now, I haven't and I'm not going to bother associating the dissenting opinions against Burger's "fraud" claim, that's
not my argument, that's yours. I'll just quote what Breyer's dissent says (emphasis added) and
you tell me where my analysis is wrong and exactly how the dissenting opinions demonstrate this "shared" alignment
you claim to see with Burger's "fraud" statement:
"The Second Amendment says that: “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.”
In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions,
to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."
Just to recap:
In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point, based on our precedent and today's opinions that the Amendment protects and individual right, a holding which the entire Court subscribes -- See also, the majority opinion and Stevens' dissent.
Since I have the Constitution, the law and the facts on my side I don't need luck.
Since
you have none of those on
your side,
you are the one who needs luck.
I'll wish you no luck because you are a duplicitous squirmy caitiff and deserve only scorn and rebuke for your complete lack of integrity.
.