Posted on 03/11/2008 5:58:52 AM PDT by BufordP
For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.
Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .
Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."
Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.
The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985)...
[...snip...]
But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Do you have a gun rights ping list?
Both part of The Bill of Rights. Of The People, for The People, by The People.
Do people really think that yeah, they're all for The People...all of them EXCEPT THAT ONE!
Does tha make sense to anyone? Why hasn't someone brought that little tidbit up?
The Supremes will narrowly decide the DC ban is unconstitutional, but not make any ruling on laws passed or instituted already.
Do not look for this decision to have any affect on the BATFE, or on any law inplace at this time.
What it will do is set the precedent that as an individual right, the 2nd Amendment cannot be trifled with as a 'collective' theory.
It will open the door to attack the Morton Grove type restrictiveness.
Then comes the fight over incorporation. Prior to the 14th Amendment the presumption was that the BOR affected only the Feds. That said, Article 1 Section 8, which, among other things, defines the missions of the militias, could be said to protect RKBA against the states. Partial incorporation is now the law of the judges. I am not saying it is part of the law of the land. Courts have not enforced all of the BOR against the states, which is why it is only the law of the judges, and not the law of the land. This is the critical next step in the restoration of the Constitution. One major function of the 2nd, was to keep a balance of power between the people and the government. That balance has been off since the mid-1930s (NFA). Time to come back the other way.
Agreed, but we can’t get the whole hog at one time. We have to regain incrementally, the same way that it was taken.
That’s a start. Been waiting a long time for a “start”.
ping
The Bill of Rights speaks to the rights of the individual citizens of the United States. Those rights are enumerated in the context of state's rights and the restrictions that the FED can impose on laws and rights of the states and their citizens.
In this way, "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." should be interpreted as a power given by the people, to the state, with their own resources, for the security of themselves and the nation. "The right of the people..." is, in every grammatical interpretation, a personal right.
If one were to argue that this was so that citizens could bring their own firearms to participate in "A well regulated militia," then the same argument would have to concede that all citizens should be able to keep and bear any weapon. "The people" had more sophisticated technology than the military while the constitution was being written. If on the other hand they want to argue that 2A is outdated and no longer applicable, then they need to have another amendment ratified by the states to change it.
The supreme court should not get into safety or need or crime etc. The supreme court is to interpret the constitution. IMO
marking...
Most of the states have CCW or provisions for it. Some have restrictive laws on the books prohibiting certain types of firearms, i.e., 'assault' weapons, full-autos, and certain large caliber rifles. Heller will provide a springboard to roll these back, as protected under the 2nd.
But expect a harder, emotional fight from the antis.
“the facts” is that the 2nd amendment is so that people can protect themselves from an oppressive govt if G-d forbid, it managed to acquire power...
mccain on guns:
In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable — even necessary — to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it’s really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.
We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation’s capital do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.
The second myth is that of the “bad gun.” This was at the core of the debate over so-called “assault weapons.” Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable — for now — but others are not if they have certain features — like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.
Finally, there is the hunting myth — if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.
A well behaved population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Either way they rule is fraught with peril.
Rule the 'collective' viewpoint, all of us as citizens are in trouble. Bad thing.
Rule as an 'individual' right(as is hoped) and the anti-gunners are in trouble. Not so bad a thing.
IF ???
Check this out!
Missed that one way back when. Great post!
well I think that is important for our country’s sake, that most people are armed and that the right to bear arms is not just exercised by hunters or a few people who are very worried about crime.
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.