Posted on 07/30/2007 1:30:58 AM PDT by goldstategop
The danger -- and one that extends beyond the sometimes mean streets of the nation's capital -- is that the high court will endorse not only the appeals court's decision but also its radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That would threaten even reasonable gun-control laws.
The 2nd Amendment reads in full: "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 dominant -- though not unanimous -- interpretation is that the first clause limits the second, making the right to bear arms a collective one.
But in striking down the district's law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia embraced the Bush administration's view that the 2nd Amendment, like the 1st Amendment, refers to an individual right. "It seems passing strange," Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote, "that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as 'Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias' or 'states have a right to a well-regulated militia.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Lets just hope that Chief Justice Roberts can bring Kennedy into the fold on this decision.
Oooh, UpChuck Schumer’s going to be so MAD if Roberts and Alito manage to lead a majority he doesn’t like in this case..........
IMHO, there is a simple answer. It was understood at the time, the 1780's, that a state militia consisted of every man capable of bearing arms. Thus, the right to bear arms is an individual right, and even a responsibility.
But does the LA Times call upon Diane Feinstein to turn in her firearm? Oh, no, high powered liberals of course have a right to keep and bear arms, it is just us unwashed masses who have to bow before those who are brighter to request the privilege. Sorry that nasty piece of paper screws up your idealist socialist state.
The most ironic thing about it all: Congress interprets ‘limited time’ to mean a lifetime plus 70 years, yet can’t read the damn sentence that spells out an absolute right.
Bears repeating.
There AREN'T any "reasonable gun control laws". That's an oxymoron. The only legitimate gun law in this land is the 2'nd ammendment.
Liberals now know that gun control is a political loser in this country, and all but the most dim witted have abandoned it as a talking point and a platform. And once we reassert our individual right to keep and bear, the rest of our rights will eventually follow because of the one absolute rule of politics.
You cannot enslave a people who have the means and will to resist you.
“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”
Why interpret the first clause as a limiter as opposed to as an expander? Perhaps the correct interpretation means that the founders thought that as weaponary evolved, citizens in order to maintain at least parity, will need expanding access to those bazookas too.
This has at least as much merit as the kooks interpretation.
He read clause by clause, and related how staffers told him in the late 1960's how Democrats actually marveled at the "beauty" of the 1938 legislation.
To Liberals, it is always "a stretch" and "outrageous" to believe that anything they would do could smack of evil or tyranny. A Liberal does not believe in the sin of man, and therefore cannot contemplate absolute good vs. evil.
And there is the core of their, er, “argument”:
In the Leftist world where the constitution is a “Living document”, they are free to tinker endlessly with any laws or standards in the pursuit of their idea of a perfect world. I am always fascinated by the arrogant hubris of those same Leftists - The smartest people in the world so they tell themselves - So pedantically focused on a single desired outcome that they never take time to consider the larger context and effects of their ideas.
Thats why Brown vs Topeka quickly leads from the freedom of attending an integrated school to government mandated busing.
Thats why the “right” to an abortion quickly leads to the government paying for those abortions.
Thats why acts of perversion and self destruction are considered “free speech” but actual speech on important political issues is not.
“Thats why acts of perversion and self destruction are considered “free speech” but actual speech on important political issues is not.”
Live sex on stage in Oregon is ruled “protected free speech” but the McCain/Feingold CFR limiting political free speech is ruled constitutional.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston, Baltimore, Ithaca, Hartford, Portland, etc. To name some of the more egregious of the hundreds of anti-gun urban cesspools in the USA
A well regulated economy, being necessary to the economic security in a free state, the right of the people to keep and own their own business, shall not be infringed.
Obviously, the above means that only the government can own a business, and that individuals cannot own their own businesses.
Actually, the judges were wrong. In urban and close fighting, there is great utility for a sawed off shotgun. At close range it has a broad sweep doing great damage.
That author is repulsed at the idea that the ‘people’ have any freedoms it seems. I’m sure, if it was up to them, all the BOR would be ‘collective’ and would basically be a slightly more free version of the USSR constitution(s).
You couldn't be more wrong. The anti-gun forces in Kongress are as determined as ever to ram ever more restrictive gun control down our throats. You are probably not aware that the McCarthy gun ban passed the house by chicanery a couple of weeks ago and is now in the Senate Judiciary committee where is is expected to be acted on in less than a month.
Gun control is one of the absolute pillars of liberal belief. Liberals will no more give up gun control than they will give up breathing. It is not a rational position to them, but part of their secular religion, part of their jihad against individualism. You cannot reason with them on the subject. They have no pity when it come to your God given right to self defense. They never rest and they never quit. They never compromise - to them the word compromise means "take some now and the rest later"
There are only three possible outcomes between liberals and those of us who value freedom.
Those are the only possibile outcomes
True.
On the other hand, if the Founders meant an individual right, surely there was a more direct locution, such as, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Zdravsvoits tovarsch - Considerably less free version.
Nope. Only white male citizens, 18-45 years of age.
I often ask liberals if they think the RKBA is a collective right, not an individual right. When they agree, I then ask them if no one should be allowed to own a gun. Usually, they agree. I then ask if they think that blacks should be prohibited from owning firearms. They generally say no, but that all persons should be included in the prohibition. I then point out that if all persons are included, they must necessarily agree with the statement that blacks should not be allowed to own guns. Generally, they get very irritated at that.
Please don’t. A lot of people really value this right, and it’s not pleasant to see you desire to see limits on it.
I’m with you on the drug stuff, but not this at all.
The liberals must think there are more ‘bad’ people than ‘good’ since they need silly laws infringing on individuals’ RKBA.
They obviously can’t stand the idea of our military running around with any kind of weapons, except of course within the USA doing their bidding.
Essentially the goal of the Left is to make the 1st Amendment "communal" instead of individual as well. Hence the push to establish broad "hate speech" provisions.
Here's a sampling taken from http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm:
State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).
Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).
Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
Maine: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision from 1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.)
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21). 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).
South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).
But also note:
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).
Similar is Vermont's Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). And then...
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
[Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]
It's a political loser, but unfortunately so is McCarthy and her ilk. She's a one issue Democrat who isn't clever enough to get into the news without gun control so like you said, she will back it all the way to the end. In fact I think you're right, there will always be some liberal somewhere banging on their high chair and demanding that the rabble be disarmed immediately.
But the broader trend is absolutely now in our favor, and I think we should make hay while the sun is shining.
And flipped dimes can land on their edges. There's only one outcome at all probable: "We are completely disarmed."
It is being done gradually because it doesn't need to be done quickly. They already know there aren't enough gun owners to put up any credible sort of resistance. So there's a gentle siege going on, slowly turning off our air and water and rights, as we sit home thinking the Supreme Court will come over the hill like the cavalry, "someday."
Eventually all but a few will emerge as lambs---because they always were. The few will face miscellaneous charges like resistance, tax evasion, truancy, failure to renew car registration, overwatering their lawn and dissing gays. That's how it's done.
I didn't give probablities just end states nor did I mean to imply that they were all equally likely. Sadly you are probably right about the most likely end. I can't see the spirit of 1776 in the USA any more. It's the welfare recipient spirit of gimmie gimmie gimmie (someone else's money.)
In some cases yes and some no. The (5 letter word meaning female dog)'s bill was passed on a VOICE VOTE (what I meant by chicanery), so it was unable to be determeined who voted for it and who didn't. I look for it to be fast tracked in the Senate before there is enough time to mount a strong opposition to it.
It doesn't matter how many anti-gun politicians lose (as you pointed out Gore and Kerry lost in no small part because of the virulent anti-gun stances) it's how many anti-gunners remain that hurts us. Its like rats. It doesn't matter how many the exterminator gets. It's how many still infest your dwelling that matters.
And don't like for Jorje Bush to veto this he is just about as pro gun as Slick Willie and on top of that he's peeved at conservatives for derailing his "give the USA to Mexicans" initiative.
I wouldn’t panic. A lot of people these days are pro-guns. Look at even liberal forums, they tend to be a few loudmouth antigunners, but a lot that are pro-guns as well.
Also, look at how CCW has spread throughout the country in the past decade, this new DC lawsuit even happening, and the AWB going away.
Things are much, much improved over 10 years ago.
"-- The Second Amendment, behind which the NRA hides, is subject to a variety of interpretations, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, for over a hundred years, that it does not prevent laws that bar guns.
We join with those who read the Second Amendment the way it was written, as a communitarian clause, calling for community militias, not individual gun slingers. --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sound familar?
In 1939 when that ruling took place, any moron should have been able to look at WW1 and the model 1897 Winchester “trench gun” to know that sawed off shotguns played a significant part in that war.
First of all, there is no such thing as “collective right”. Individuals can grant POWERS to groups of people in order to give them the authority to enforce laws and ensure a positive environment. Those groups of people are called “governments”. Now, why would ANYONE grant a government EXCLUSIVE use of power over them/ Well, anyone except idiot liberals.
I want to know what they think the ‘community’ is made of.. Apparently not ‘individuals’? I’m not really being sarcastic, but who makes up this ‘commune’?
I know, it means the government. I wish they’d just say that they think the second amendment only supports the right of the government to keep arms.
I totally agree.
I can think of a few good reasons for allowing any weapon tha would assist in the restoration of a renegade miitary or a renegade government.
“any moron”
Lawyers are not “any morons”,they are a special case!
A couple years ago I used it deer hunting behind my house.
They shoot slugs quite well with the cyl bore. I shot a buck opening morning, cleaned it and put it back in the gun case.
I wont use it again but I often wonder about its history and what else it has killed in its 100+ years.
Communitarians firmly believe that a majority consensus can wisely rule; - that our Constitutions rule of law can safely be trumped by the rule of a majority.
Beware of the man who claims conservative credentials, while he argues that our US Constitution was not intended to protect our individual rights from fed, state, or local government infringements.
These men claim that 'We, -as a society', decide which rights we will protect --- And if 'We' choose not to protect your right to [drugs, guns, - whatever], so be it. If and when a majority of the people decide that we should protect a right, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.
--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.
Don’t worry occga, I wasn’t correcting you, just weeping over my oatmeal. This country is going down the tubes like all those before it, whether just or unjust. Guns or no guns, we are already enslaved in a network of over-regulation, such that the govt will never need to come for our guns directly. All are guilty of something. They’ll come for our kids, salaries, cars, homes.
That will be the message: You want to keep guns? Fine, keep them and lose everything else. And so will anyone who helps you.
There AREN’T any “reasonable gun control laws”. That’s an oxymoron. The only legitimate gun law in this land is the 2’nd ammendment.
if the Founders meant an individual right, surely there was a more direct locution, such as, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I hope every anti-gun Dimm continues to face defeat at the ballot box. These ungodly, sellout quislings have no business whatsoever attempting to lead our great country.
It’s a good time for every conservative patriot in America to become a NRA Life Member, vocally support individual gunowners rights & shooting sports, and run for elected office if you are led to by Almighty God.
The only "reasonable" gun control law is making sure someone shot in self defense. All other prohibitions, carry restrictions, or non-payable taxation schemes are violations of the Constitutions clear statement of "shall not be infringed".
Here we go again. And right here in a nutshell is a kernel of CW2.
I have read in the past a variety of legal and linguistic interpretations, deliberate misrepresentations, and eveything in between about how the first clause may or may not affect the second.
One argument I thought convincing of the idea that the first clause has no real effect on the second was made by example: "The moon being made of green cheese, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The very idea that the 2nd would not apply to "The People" as the word is used in the other Amendments in the BOR is a tesament to the intellectual dishonesty of our day.
I like old guns too. Have you ever seen the part of the NRA show on the Hunting channels where they do a few minutes on ‘This old gun’? Interesting stuff.
I have an old single shot 12 gauge. Baught it real cheap. It’s hard to make out, but it says FIE on it. I should go do some research to find out where it’s from and possibly how old it is.
From 1787 until 1933, the interpretation was unlimited personal arms. (148 years)
From 1934 until today, the feds have decided to attempt to disarm the citizens. (74 years)
I think I will stick with tradition myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.