https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tG9lPpTgQts

In an interview Breyer stated

Yes, this wanna-be Constitutional "scholar" is pretending to be channeling James Madison despite Federalist 46 flatly contradicting him.

In any case, let this be another reminder that we have two sitting judges, Ginsburg and Breyer commenting now that Heller was wrongly decided and both stating that would change it if they could get another gun case before the court and if they had the majority. Ginsburg was more explicit about this when she thought that Hillary was going to win but don't mistake Breyer's obvious innuendo.

If Hillary had won it would have been the end of private gun ownership in America. Sotomayor voted against McDonald which was the attempt of the courts' libs to flip Heller or at least nerf it.

As it is Breyer is the 3rd oldest judge behind Ginsburg and Kennedy, so we will likely have to continue putting up with his assaults on civil rights for another few years.

Liberty hangs by a thread, and whatever your misgivings about Trump he saved us from disarmament. His first SCOTUS judge, Gorsuch, already attempted to overturn an AWB.

The phrase "The People" is used in other parts of The Bill of Rights.
Ask him how his interpretation affects 1A?

That's a very good point Mike!

And who makes up 'the collective'?!?

The f'in individuals.....

Let's use new terms so we can redefine the Intent that has been interpreted the same way for hundreds of years.

What an ego to think that now, YOUR dumb ass comes along, and finally gets it right.

Dang, if you're going to put a link up with a topic, at least give a time in the video so people don't have to wade through 40 minutes of egocentric conversation.

Skip to 41:45 for his opinion on the 2nd amendment

Thanks, I was also going to paste a link to the article that pointed me to the video but for some reason it didn't get pasted it.

Wow.........he sounds a bit intelligent but BS just comes out.

I appreciated the link, but I was losing patience skipping though the file. Figured I spare others the pain. LOL

Had another thought about this...

I agree in principle, but do not think it would have ended private gun ownership.
Instead, it would have led to the 2nd Civil War.

So if this is seen as a "collective right" does that mean we all need to have a community armory where anyone can come pick up a firearm? A collective is made up of individuals... you can't have one without them! Also, if it is a collective right, then how are they proposing you deny that right to those individuals in the collective that we deem are unfit (felons, etc)? Denying one member of a collective puts it back on an individual level, otherwise you would have to deny the collective based on the ineligibility of the individual.

I watched the whole video and I think the answer to that question is that the justices would use tortured logic to say that the fact we have a military and national guards in each state means 2A only applies to them now.

It was truly disgusting to see how Breyer was talking about his "judicial philosophy" and that "consequences" of decisions should weigh as much for judges as actual words in the Constitution/statute...

It IS logical, but it disregards the entire purpose of the USA and The Constitution : Individual liberty.
How do we encourage this to become a higher priority than it has become, both in the educational and judicial systems?


The definition of an activist judge.

Just because SCOTUS opines does not make them right nor do they have the final say.

What a justice says outside of their official duty counts far less than actual written opinion inside a case before the court. Judge them by their works.

Except in this case his stated opinion was also what he wrote in both Heller and McDonald and he also said that the court's majority was wrong.

In lower courts when judges do things like this and attempt to offer opinions on how they'd pre-judge future cases to achieve a certain ruling that's a big no-no and they are pressured to then recuse themselves if those cases ever come up.

In essence its a judge behaving as a legislator and openly advocating for changing settled law he doesn't like. That segment of the interview might as well have been Breyer asking for people to bring him another gun case he could rule on how he pleases, just as Ginsburg did.

People have the right to protect themselves, to have firearms. This is a right that isn't given or bestowed by anybody or anything. It is inalienable.

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to have guns. The 2nd Amendment says, this right you already have, cannot be infringed upon by the government.