SCOTUS speaks: a 2nd Amendment victory
No wonder the left is so enraged at SCOTUS.
Today’s big big SCOTUS news is on gun rights. You can read about the Court’s 6-3 ruling here as well as here. The gist of it is that New York has had a law that requires a person requesting a concealed carry permit to demonstrate a special need for self-defense, and the state has been stingy in granting such requests, and the law has been ruled unconstitutional as violating the 2nd Amendment.
From the decision authored by Clarence Thomas:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.
As expected, many gun control advocates have gone full insurrection over this. From Keith Olbermann, that noted Constitutional scholar:
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?#IgnoreTheCourt
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 23, 2022
This is an important ruling. I’m convinced that if the conservative/liberal breakdown of the Court had been the opposite, the New York law would have been upheld. That’s how political these decisions usually are, especially the big ones. However, there was also an 8-1 ruling in favor of the right, involving voting laws (although the ruling is more about legal procedure than anything else):
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that two Republican legislators in North Carolina can join a lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of the state’s voter-identification law. Two lower courts had rejected the legislators’ request, reasoning that the state’s Democratic attorney general and the board of elections were already defending the law, but the justices reversed those rulings. In an 8-1 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court ruled that the Republican legislators have a right to intervene in the lawsuit.
Thursday’s decision addressed only the legislators’ right to join the lawsuit to defend the voter-ID law; it did not address the underlying issue of whether the law violates federal voting-rights protections.
Sotomayor was the only dissenting vote.
And at some point in the not-too-distant future the Court should be issuing an abortion ruling in Dobbs.
It’s Dobbs and some are saying tomorrow or Monday at the latest.
Griffin:
Thanks. Fixed. That’s what I get for relying on memory for that sort of thing.
“Dodd” is about senators from Connecticut, father and son.
Many years ago, I did a deep dive on the 2nd Amendment and came to these conclusions:
a) The 2nd Amendment is the “Middle Ground”, and the middle ground is a desirable objective because it has a good chance of being a “stable” solution (i.e., the polar opposite boundary of ‘no citizen can own a gun’ is not the 2nd Amendment, it is ‘all citizens must own a gun’).
b) It is illogical to include ‘People’ in the amendment, if the amendment does not apply to ‘People’ (e.g., none of the other amendments explicitly include a party that is not covered by the amendment).
c) It is illogical to conclude in this amendment the word “right” does not apply to the party explicitly noted, when the word “right” does apply to the party explicitly noted in the other amendments. (e.g., 7 other amendments explicitly define a party that is covered by the amendment, none of the other amendments have this logic contradiction).
***
Most discussions of Gun Control start with boundaries that eliminate half of the options. And any discussion of Gun Control needs to start with defining the “complete” negotiation framework.
Negotiation Framework:
• One boundary is: No adult civilian* can own a gun
• The other boundary is: All adult civilians must own a gun
* = civilian is defined as: Not a member of Law Enforcement or Military
With the complete negotiation framework properly defined, it is possible to determine what is the “middle ground”. Determining the middle ground is a desirable objective because it has a good chance of being a “stable” solution.
A Gun Control solution that Prohibits (no adult civilians) – or Mandates (all adult civilians) – would require significant time & money to implement and maintain.
Letting each adult civilian decide for themselves would require significantly less ** time & money to implement and maintain.
** = some time & money would need to be spent on factors that impact Gun Control (e.g., criminal penalties, mental health issues, underage)
The right to decide if they (adult civilian) wish to own a gun – or not own a gun – is the middle ground, and a stable solution.
The 2nd Amendment protects the middle ground and supports a stable solution.
Lastly, protecting the middle ground and supporting a stable solution makes the 2nd Amendment a “common sense” approach. And a common sense approach has the best chance of being widely accepted by the public – and standing the test-of-time (both attributes of the 2nd Amendment).
They could go through the process of repealing the 2nd amendment…
that guy:
I don’t agree that those are the correct 2 boundaries. Wouldn’t the second boundary be “All adult civilians have the right to own a gun if they choose to exercise that right”? That is not the middle ground. It is the boundary. The way the 2nd Amendment is phrased, it clearly does not mandate owning a gun and could not ever be interpreted that way, IMHO.
What’s more, there is no mandate of that sort for individuals to exercise any liberty in the Bill of Rights: people MUST assemble? people MUST speak? people MUST exercise religion? No; they have the right to do so if they wish.
The Thomas Court points the way to an American Restoration.
There is a simple determinate: if Congress may make no law infringing the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms, then neither may the States infringe upon that right. As the constitutionality and therefore legitimacy of State laws rests upon their congruence with the Constitution.
Thanks for highlighting the NC voter ID case. Our problem is that our Democrat AG voted against the voter ID law in the legislature before being elected as AG; our Democrat governor vetoed the law and the legislature overrode his veto; and the State Board of Elections is appointed by the governor and therefore majority-Democrat and opposed to voter ID. The legislature felt, reasonably, that the AG and SBOE were going to be lukewarm at best in defending the law.
Im sure Olbermann was a big fan of the Enabling Act
It is to be hoped that in a future revised edition of the “Urban Dictionary”, the definition of the pejorative “putz” will feature Keith Olbermann’s and Alec Baldwin’s names appended as examples of one.
“2. putz (n) a stupid, ignorant person; someone who doesn’t pay attention to anything going on; one who makes stupid remarks.”
There’s also little doubt that Olbermann is privately in favor of permanently imprisoning anyone who voted for Trump.
On the 2nd Ad. ruling: Katie Pavlich over at Townhall just posted that Alito has published a concurring opinion. You can read it at this link below. The gist of it, as I read it, is that Alito in judiciary type language is calling the 3 dissenters idiots. Kinda cool.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/06/23/alito-takes-a-blow-torch-to-liberal-justices-opinion-on-latest-gun-case-n2609218
There are quite a few differences between NY firearms laws and California’s. But CA is similar or the same with respect to “may issue” (at our discretion) conceal carry licenses. What are the odds that CA legislators will change this now and comply with the new “law of the land?” Zero?
Remember how “our discretion” was often swayed to the affirmative in NYC? Lots of cash. Some operator in NYC was busted along with his buddy with licensing authority in the police dept. The funny thing was that the licensing cop was pocketing 2 or $5K per license, whereas the private operator was pocketing 50 or $60K, IIRC. Classic.
TommyJay – I’m pretty sure that both NY and CA will follow Olbermann’s call for nullification. Get out the popcorn. It’s going to be fun to watch them start nullification and then ask WTF when Texas does it over the border.
@neo
Strikes me that you are operating within the Negotiation Framework that I described – and that you do not realize that.
MUST/ Mandate is one extreme boundary for the Negotiation Framework – and CANNOT/ Prohibit is the other extreme/ polar opposite boundary.
And my interpretation of what you pointed out is that trying to change the amendment to MUST would be an extreme negotiating position. Just as CANNOT is an extreme negotiating position.
Which is why what the BoR authors created is the “Middle Ground”: Citizens are not required/ MUST, or prohibited/ CANNOT – It is their choice.
That is also why I concluded that: “The 2nd Amendment protects the middle ground and supports a stable solution. [And] protecting the middle ground and supporting a stable solution makes the 2nd Amendment a “common sense” approach. And a common sense approach has the best chance of being widely accepted by the public – and standing the test-of-time (both attributes of the 2nd Amendment).”
Just one more example of the brilliance of our Founding Fathers.
Lastly, even if these are still not conclusions you would make, that’s OK. Just chalk it up to “occupational hazard” for me. If I am going to help my client get the best outcome, I need to help ensure that negotiations don’t start with where the boundary stake was moved to the last time. So even if Gun Control negotiators that wish to protect the 2nd Amendment have 0% interest in MUST, they really do need to ensure that “expansion” is not left off of the negotiating table if the other negotiates wish to talk “reduction” (i.e., make them fight to get back to the middle, maintain what they came in with – especially if you had no interest in renegotiating).
My dad is currently about 14 months into the 18+ month process to get his firearm permit in NY (upstate). Not conceal carry, just wants permission to own a firearm. From what I can remember, he has had to jump through the following hoops:
– a weekend-long training course
– complete history of literally every place he has ever lived. (He’s in his 60s, it’s quite a list and all has to check out)
-application has to be notarized
-multiple personal character references who live in the county in which he’s applying, who all have to complete their own notarized forms and interviews. Some counties make your references have background checks also
– full background check by NYS and FBI and fingerprinting
– a *reason* for wanting a permit. As I understand it, this is the piece that was deemed unconstitutional.
Then when your paperwork is done, you submit it to your sheriff’s dept and they schedule you for an interview in 6-8 months with the 1 person at the precinct who does these interviews and who in my parents’ county only does these interviews one day/week. That person approves or denies you from your paperwork and interview.
If you’re approved by the sheriff, then you get a court date in another 6-8 months where you stand in front of a judge who decides 1) if your reason is good enough, 2) what kind of gun you’re allowed to possess depending on who they believe you to be and what your reason is. They can grant you a pistol or a rifle permit for example.
Then you have to file the serial number with the court before you’re allowed to own it… which is complicated because you don’t have the serial number until you make a purchase. So gun sellers up there work with you through the process, you can buy it and they’ll hold onto it until you have the permit. If you come to court prepared with the serial number of a handgun and you are allowed a handgun permit, you can file the serial number with the court right there.
Sorry for the length! What makes this even wilder is that every county in NYS has their own rules! And all of them are different, but alike in the burden they place on law-abiding citizens.
From The Hill today: Senate advances gun safety bill, overcoming filibuster
Apparently, the senators only had a few hours to read the final bill before this above vote was held. Whereas the WaPo had the final wording available to them for more than 24 hours.
The part I love is the duplicity of the House GOP. Kevin McCarthy and some others are acting tough about how they will vote no on this bill when it comes over from the Senate. Who cares? Can you stop it? Only the filibuster could have stopped it. Thanks Mitch and John Cornyn.
A summary here of NY, DOJ, and Biden responses showing no respect for the decision. One wonders if they will actively encourage non-compliance.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/06/23/dems-lose-their-minds-doj-makes-concerning-statement-on-scotus-gun-rights-decision-n582973
The spirit of Andrew Jackson is alive and strong on today’s left.
physicsguy, that Alito concurring opinion is wonderful.
Sorry for the length! What makes this even wilder is that every county in NYS has their own rules! And all of them are different, but alike in the burden they place on law-abiding citizens.
AFAICT, the procedures you list contain enough gratuitous material that it amounts to a constructive refusal to grant a permit.
Does this mean I’ll be able to carry a gun in my car on my commute from my home in Indiana (glorious open carry state) to my job in Chicago, Illinois (totalitarian state)?
It’s a serious question. Can anyone answer it?
Kshoosh,
That’s quite incredible. Buying and shooting at a range, is much much easier in California. Hard to believe. Carrying is “may issue” here.
We’ve got a 10 day waiting period to buy, red-flag laws if you’ve been naughty, and I discovered recently that the standard CA driver’s license is useless for a firearm or ammo purchase. The authenticated Real-ID version of driver’s license or passport is required. No private sales are allowed, unless you go through a licensed dealer with background checks. BTW, all these background checks will cost you 75 to $125 a pop.
The biggest hurdle now was the intersection of the requirement of background checks for all ammo purchases, and the ammo shortage caused by the pandemic. Buying ammo at stores might not be too bad, but they don’t have any. Most of the internet sellers won’t ship to CA once the new law went into effect.
One of the flash points in our political culture today is aging liberals like Olbermann who spent virtually their entire lives with the Supreme Court as the ultimate weapon in American politics and it was always on their side. They believe that “arc of history bends toward justice” nonsense and think they define “justice.” They believe they always get to win. Even if they get outworked, out-thought, out-argued, and outmaneuvered. Even if the other side plays by the rules and beats them fair and square.
There’s literally no co-existing with those people unless you’re willing to become a serf, a slave, or a second-class citizen. Olbermann is calling for actual insurrection at the exact same time liberals are trying to smear Donald Trump as an insurrectionist and he doesn’t see anything wrong with that.
Mike
IrishOtter,
I’m no lawyer, but I think you have to wait for an Illinois court or legislature to act on that issue.
Heller would have been dispositive, but it’s 14 years later,
Andrew McCarthy made an interesting point that I had never considered. In responding to Bruen, he pointed out that the Amendments do not confer a right, but presume the existence of rights prior to the Constitution and impede the government from interfering with those (“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
Futhermore the militia only argument which Olberman again raises is pure ignorance. The U.S. Code defines the militia as ” . . . all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . .”; in other words, The People.
The Code then goes on to characterize the organized militia (The National Guard and the Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia (everybody else). Thus, not only is it the people’s right to bear arms, but the unorganized militia includes all of those people who Olberman would claim have no right to bear arms in the first place.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-311.html
MBunge:
Olbermann knows that his own insurrection is the noble one and the other is the ignoble one.
MBunge, re Olbermann: yes, exactly.
If I remember correctly Olbermann used to hand out a “worst person in the world” award frequently. This tweet certainly makes him a strong contender for his own award.
that is the point of natural rights, or negative liberties, something obama raged against when he was lucid, because the government doesn’t have a role, except to guarantee rights, except for illegals and terrorists, that’s totes fine,
that guy:
Negotiating positions, even extreme ones, need to have some possible relationship to the wording. For example, “no one in the entire US is allowed to have a firearm or any other weapon” is not a proper negotiating position, even an extreme one, within the framework of the 2nd Amendment as stated. It’s absurd rather than extreme. Neither is “everyone must own a firearm” compatible even with the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It’s an absurd interpretation.
The extreme negotiating positions congruent with possible interpretations are (a) only actual militias or the army in the US may have firearms, or (b) every person in the US, including felons or crazy people, is allowed to have a firearm if that person so desires, no questions asked.
Art Deco
My Kentucky born and raised husband agrees with you. He was shocked to learn of the full process, and thought/hoped this SC decision accomplished more than it did. Frankly, he’s been shocked to learn of many of the laws under which I grew up. Meanwhile after 6 years of living with him in Kentucky, I have gradually almost stopped reflexively thinking “are we allowed to do [such and whatnot]?” It’s hard to deprogram being raised in a totalitarian mindset, even when you’re naturally a far more independent-leaning personality.
TommyJay
We have offered to take my dad to one of the ranges here in Kentucky, I think he would have a blast 😉 partly, I think he’s going through the process out of spite, if that makes sense? He believes he should be able to carry, he should pass with flying colors, and so if this is the process to make it happen, he’s willing to waste the time of these elected and unelected officials and jump through these hoops.
Prior to the Obama administration, I don’t recall any executive branches declining to defend the constitutionality of a law, or shadow-repealing a law by settling a challenge with the plaintiffs or declining to appeal a lower court ruling against the law.
Also – in another disturbing development, the lawyer who won the Bruen case was told by his firm that he had to fire his other gun-related claims. He quit the firm instead. I don’t know why lawyers believe that they have some sort of superior political insight. I don’t know when clients decided that they had the right to police their firm’s other clients for political reasons. How abusive. These people don’t understand what happens after people believe that these institutions are not trustworthy.
And now winning at the Supreme Court gets you cancelled by your law firm. This is scary. https://www.wsj.com/articles/2nd-amendment-bruen-new-york-gun-case-supreme-court-decision-kirkland-and-ellis-rule-of-law-constitution-11656017031?st=o2ux4344ks8b1be&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
T wrote,
“… that the Amendments do not confer a right, but presume the existence of rights prior to the Constitution and impede the government from interfering with those …”
Actually, we Americans believe (accurately) that our rights exist regardless of what our government, or any other government may or may not say or do. The Founders were not “presuming” the existence of natural rights, they were reiterating the reality of their existence.
It is a very important distinction and all Americans should understand the distinction. People living in the People’s Republics of China or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have the same natural rights you and I do. However, they live under fascist regimes that forcibly restrict their free exercise of their natural rights.
All Americans should be aware that the vast history of mankind and governments is one of governments attempting to deprive citizens of the free exercise of their natural rights. Our own government is not immune from this propensity.
IrishOtter, check this link. I think Illinois will NOT honor your Indiana concealed carry permit.
https://www.usacarry.com/concealed-carry-permit-reciprocity-maps/
Following up on Rufus above:
This also applies in the difference between being governed and ruled. Europeans, with millenia of the divine right of kings, are used to being ruled. In the U.S. I believe that it is in our DNA to rebel against that; we will agree to be governed we reject being ruled. Governments, however, have a natural propensity to become ever more intrusive and rule their populace. IMO this is the underpinning of the so-called Great Reset and the fundamental raison d’etre of the Davos crowd.
Europeans, with millenia of the divine right of kings, are used to being ruled.
I think ‘Divine Right of Kings’ was an early modern innovation in political thought. That aside, modern parliamentary institutions have been modal in Europe since the end of the Napoleonic period. That’s seven generations.
Thanks for the link, John Fisher. One of the lawyers asked to leave Kirkland & Ellis is Paul Clement, a former US solicitor general. Unbelievable.
And now winning at the Supreme Court gets you cancelled by your law firm. This is scary
It’ll be less scary if Kirkland & Ellis implodes because the partners do not trust each other. As dishonorable people should not. Here’s hoping.
At the WSJ link about Kirkland & Ellis asking successful Supreme Court appellants to leave the firm, the very first comment points out that K&E have a number of gas and oil clients, who may want to reconsider their representation. And even at the WSJ, where you have to be a subscriber to comment, there’s a Karen (named Karen) who suggests that these lawyers’ reputations are ruined and they will be responsible for many lives lost. Good grief.
Kshoosh,
I got started in California out curiosity more than spite. I wanted to know exactly what it took, not just a vague description. It was relatively painless in 2015, though its gotten moderately worse in recent years.
Kate, et al:
Actually, they were told to drop their 2nd Amendment clients or leave. They chose – correctly – to leave.
I probably will write a post about this tomorrow.
Alito’s takedown of the dissenters is a wonderful read. See: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/06/23/alito-takes-a-blow-torch-to-liberal-justices-opinion-on-latest-gun-case-n2609218
Snippet:
Alito: “I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.”
Oh, and Stacy McCain: “In Shocking Decision, Supreme Court Agrees With Laws of 43 States”
You know, it’s funny being on vacation in Tennessee, several states removed from the Empire State. I was on my way into some restaurant or something* the other day when I noticed a sign at the door: “Please refrain from open carrying of firearms in this store” I think was the wording. It struck me first that open carry is presumed in those parts to be fairly routine, and it also struck me that the sign was not a demand, but a mere polite request instead.
* (I assume it was a restaurant that had this sign because most of the businesses whose premises I’ve been entering during my time in Tenn. have been in that category.)
Why would anyone care what Olberman, a complete dolt, thinks on any subject?
What is the implication of a concurring opinion? The left media are gleefully saying that the Roberts-Kavanaugh concurring opinion is a loophole that can be used by the may issue states to circumvent the Thomas decision. Are there any lawyers here that can say if this correct?
Maybe that’s being too legalistic. We know that the ninth and second circuit will continue to interpret as broadly as they want. The only way the Supreme Court can stop them is to grant CERT to challenges of their decisions. You can be sure that Roberts will lobby furiously to stop that. AFAIK if Kav joins him then they can combine with the leftists to stop granting CERT
I looked it up and I was wrong. All it takes is four votes to grant CERT. But if Roberts and Kav vote with the left on a case then they can defeat the conservatives.
Today is Clarence Thomas’s 74th birthday; may he have many more to come.
@Neo
Three Quick Thoughts, Two Examples, and One Fact
QUICK THOUGHTS
1) Strikes me that we are in agreement that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to choose:
a) “The right to decide if they (adult civilian) wish to own a gun – or not own a gun …” [me]
b) “All adult civilians have the right to own a gun if they choose to exercise that right”? [you]
2) Strikes me that we differ – significantly – on whether the 2nd Amendment falls within a larger Negotiation Framework, or defines the Negotiation Framework.
a) Negotiation Framework:
– One boundary is: No adult civilian* can own a gun [me]
– The other boundary is: All adult civilians must own a gun [me]
b) MUST/ Mandate is one extreme boundary for the Negotiation Framework – and CANNOT/ Prohibit is the other extreme/ polar opposite boundary. [me]
c) “…within the framework of the 2nd Amendment as stated.’ [you]
d) “Neither is compatible even with the most extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.” [you]
3) Strikes me that past Gun Control negotiations did not use your Negotiation Framework or expectations: “Negotiating positions, even extreme ones, need to have some possible relationship to the wording.”
And that they may have used this boundary in the Negotiation Framework I defined: “No adult civilian* can own a gun.”
Also, there are members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches that may not consider themselves to be bound by your Negotiation Framework or expectations in future negotiations.
a) 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.
– the 2nd Amendment explicitly states that this right “shall not be infringed”
– there are no restrictions defined in the 2nd Amendment (e.g., age, weapon, criminal history, mental health, commerce).
b) The National Firearms Act of 1934 reduced our rights under the 2nd Amendment via firearm restrictions.
c) Subsequent legislation has continued to reduce our rights under the 2nd Amendment (e.g., age, weapon, criminal history, mental health, commerce).
EXAMPLES
“…they really do need to ensure that “expansion” is not left off of the negotiating table if the other [negotiators] wish to talk “reduction” …”
1) Restrictions on the manufacture, sale, and possession of fully automatic firearms would be lifted if all firearm sales are subject to age, criminal history and mental health restrictions.
2) There can be no restrictions on the Right-To-Carry if the individual passed their National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS).
FACT
1) My clients do not hire me because I promise to think like everyone else.
***
Lastly, have enjoyed reading your perspective.
@ that guy
Maybe you should redefine “civilian”. Otherwise it seems that military and police wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd Amendment, because they don’t necessarily own the guns that are issued to them.
Kshoosh,
Similar process in the state of Hawaii, minus the interviews and character references. FBI background check and the nonsensical purchase/serial # rigamarole. With a 48 hour window to accomplish it in. And just try getting an appointment to initiate the process. After trolling the HPD site multiple times late at night I was able to grab a cancellation and get an appointment and applied for and obtained a ‘long gun’ permit – which ran out before I could find a rifle for sale in the state. It seems I wasn’t alone!
The handgun permit requires completion of a safety course that is not offered at this time. It’s obvious all of these ‘requirements’ are purposely designed to prevent legitimate gun ownership.
As one acquaintance of mine said regarding the matter; ‘Buy one in a free state and ship it over. HPD doesn’t need to know what you’ve got.’ FWIW, both she and her husband are retired federal employees.
@Neo
Meant to note that it is not unusual to have different opinions as to the boundaries of the Negotiation Framework, and some practical ways of getting everyone on the same page are to:
1) Ask them to list complete opposites of the boundaries that have been suggested (or create pairs of complete opposites).
2) Ask them to identify if any of the boundaries that have been suggested are not as “far” as some of the other suggestions (possible to still push out the boundary).
3) Ask them to identify if any of the suggestions are not like the others.
ex: CANNOT and MUST, or Prohibit and Mandate, or ‘All adult civilians have the right to not own a gun if they choose to exercise that right’ and ‘All adult civilians have the right to own a gun if they choose to exercise that right,’ or ‘No adult civilian* can own a gun’ and ‘All adult civilians must own a gun’.
Lastly, defining the far boundaries does not mean that an “extreme” is the desired outcome; but it can help to identify what you can give up and still end up where you wish to be.
It has become necessary to dissolve Keith Olbermann.
Aqua regia would work. 🙂