Posted on 04/29/2008 7:49:41 PM PDT by RWB Patriot
A historic event may soon be taking place; in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court will make a ruling that may finally decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms or if it only protects a state's right to maintain a militia, this often being defined as the National Guard.
While supporters of the 'individual rights' interpretation of the Second Amendment no doubt pray for a ruling that supports their views (as well as the Founding Fathers'), there may be little to fear from a ruling stating that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard.
First off, the Founding Fathers, no doubt anticipating attacks on the Second Amendment in the future, put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights several safe guards that will remain in effect even if the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision, as well as make any move by the government to seize firearms easier to challenge.
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment's protection against taking property without due process will protect the rights of those who already own a firearm. The Tenth Amendment will also present an formidable obstacle, as there is nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights granting the Government power to confiscate property, even if it isn't specifically protected by said documents.
As for those of us who do not yet own firearms, a certain bill written in 1907 that created what is today the National Guard also created what is called the "Reserve Militia", which, according to Wikipedia, "presently consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)[2]." That bill is the Militia Act of 1903.
Thus, even if the Court rules that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias, a person could still challenge the assumption that the National Guard is the only militia. Also, if one can prove that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be a protection against tyranical government, the fact that the National Guard can be placed under the Federal Government's control can also be used to challenge a 'state's rights' view of the Second Amendment.
Granted, we should not let these apparent safeguards lull us into a false sense of security. Our government routinely violates Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression in the name of political correctness and sensitivity, and Freedom of Religion is currently being suppressed in the name of "Separation of Church and State". One must not disbelieve that the government will try and find a loophole with which to ban firearm ownership and confiscate all firearms. However, we can take some comfort in the fact that, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the American people will not be easily disarmed.
So for now, watch, listen and pray. If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, than we have won a great victory for freedom. If not, know that the road to disarmament will be a rough and bumpy ride for the government, one they may find they are unable to take.
Hopefully, intelligent heads will prevail in the hearing and the Supreme Court will rule in our favor. Time will tell.
Speaking of time, when is the Court supposed to release their opinion?
Makes sense, that’s why it’s wrong. If the SC so rules, expect the firearms to be rounded up.
According to Wikipedia, the end of June.
I never said they wouldn’t be if the wrong decision is made. I just feel it won’t be as easy as the government and anti-gun crowd believes it will be.
How does that effect those of us over 45 years of age?
Why this case was used as a test, why any test case was promoted, I’ll never know.
To possibly help some DC citizens, all our rights were put on trial.
Bad move.
Never go to court when you can lose more than you can win.
If you already own a gun, then the Amendments protecting private property come into play. And considering that people nowadays are more healthy and active even into their fifties and older than they were in the early 1900s, a case can be made to increase the age limit in the militia act.
Should we fear? Nope. We’ve got the guns.
When they try that there will be a sh*t storm created that this country has not seen since the civil war.
See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nNote that the page referenced above is dated for more than two years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. So Bingham was evidently assuring his colleagues about the scope and purpose of the ratified 14th Amendment.
The bottom line is that the only thing that DC v. Heller is testing is how corrupt the Supreme Court is. Given that the Court decides the case in DC's favor, then it's time, actually long overdue, to peacefully heed Lincoln's advice about government leaders who aren't respecting the Constitution that they have sworn to defend.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
That is not correct! The Federal Government believes it owns the guns. Congress actually let the cat out of the bag in the early 1990s when US Senator Metzenbaum of Ohio introduced an assault weapons ban. While that particular assault weapons ban did not go anywhere the premise of the ban was that if you owned a so called assault weapon you would need to complete a new 4473 to keep it. Failure to do so would result in a severe 5 year prison term, no parole.
You could not sell it to anyone, but at some point you could transfer it to your son or daughter if they too then filled out a 4473. It could only be transfered once, however, and only to a son or daughter, and only with a new 4473.
If you no longer wanted it or or died or, your kid did not want it or died then the weapons REVERTED back to the Federal Government. It could only be transferred once before it reverted back to the Federal Governmetn and the possesor was required to turn it in.
Since 1968 the Fed Gov. has forced manufacturers and gun dealers to complete 4473 forms when a gun is transfered or sold. The 4473 acts as a title which denotes an ownership interest on the part of the issuer of the title. How do you think local and state governments get away with confiscating your car for some unrelated crime without due process? It is because the car is titled.
In the proposed Mezenbaum bill the Federal Government would be empowered to force everyone to re-title their so called assault weapons with a 4473 under the threat of felony prosecution and five years prison for each offense so they could establish the ownership interest on every the assault weapon whether it or not it had been acquired from a dealer or private person.
I would never have thought that there are FReepers that don't own guns.............
I'm not concerned with confiscation. In my opinion, any man that will let a government take his guns away from him doesn't deserve them to begin with.
If the SCOTUS goes against the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, common sense and the English language, no other tenant of law will matter.
It will be time.
The worst result will be a strong majority declaring the Second an individual right subject to common sense regulation.
That will keep the sheeple down as the NRA declares victory but will set us permanently on the road to confiscation and destruction of the Constitution and Republic, with slavery the result.
The SCOTUS ruling in Kelo vs New London removed property rights from the debate.
“The bottom line is that the only thing that DC v. Heller is testing is how corrupt the Supreme Court is.”
Now that’s the truth.
No other amendment says, “Shall not be infringed.”
I would hope we never find out. If we do, I hope you are right, and I am wrong. But I fear I am right. We;;, we’ll see. Let’s root for option 1, above :)
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.