Posted on 01/15/2004 4:00:02 PM PST by neverdem
Edited on 01/15/2004 4:19:00 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The constitutional right to bear arms doesn't apply to the District of Columbia's residents, a federal judge ruled yesterday in rejecting the claim of several city residents who contended that a 1976 city law banning the possession of guns left them unfairly vulnerable.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he dismissed the lawsuit, led by taxicab commissioner and activist Sandra Seegars, after determining that the District was a "uniquely designed governmental entity" and that the founders were not considering the city when they wrote the Constitution's Second Amendment allowing state militias to take up arms against the federal government.
Walton found that all but one of the District residents suing the city and the federal government did not have a legitimate reason to file a federal suit about their constitutional rights because they didn't own a gun nor had they tried to register one. For the one resident who did own a shotgun, Gardine Hailes, the judge ruled that a history of court decisions led him to conclude that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the city that is the home of the federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The second ammendment does not say that "no law respecting the keeping and bearing of arms shall be made", it just does not say that in the U.S. Constitution. It does say "shall not be infringed", (broken, violated, revoked.....either immediately or gradually)
But, just the Ninth Ammendment alone gives Congress the right to make laws concerning the Second Ammendment. And, the Second Ammendment does not void Article VI, Clause 2, or Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, or Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18.
In addition, property owned by the federal government is subject to the laws made by Congress, and signed by the President. For example, you cannot wear a gun and just walk into the Oval Office, or the Halls of Congress, or a military base, or the District of Columbia, (if Congress so decides). Now, think about it. You probably own property, and I don't think you would allow just anybody to just walk into your house anytime they wanted to, with a gun in their hand, would you? Or cross over your land, anytime they wanted to, fully armed?
We are talking about property owned by the federal government, that the federal government is in charge of. Even though our taxes pay for it, it is not our property.
It is our duty as citizens to work tirelessly to see that the people who are sent to Congress and the state legislatures, and governors and presidents, and judges.....that they are people who will make, keep, and defend laws that fully protect our rights to keep and bear arms. One of the best ways we can do this is to weed out corruption in our governments, in our society, in our own families.
Probably the greatest fear of any politician is a calm, informed, resolute, large group of people, bent on seeing that things are done right. People who will not allow themselves to be corrupted with bribes or favors, but demand accountability throught the power of their voices and votes.
There is still time to do this in a peaceful way, without our weapons. Through our examples, our influence, our voices and votes, each one of us starting first with ourselves.
You've never actually read the Ninth amendment, have you?
Can you think of an example that might have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
All that means is that the Constitution gives Congress general powers over such areas. It does not mean they can violate the rest of the Constitution in those areas. They can't restrict free speach, habeus corpus cannot be denied, except as provided in the Constitution, and so forth.
And this is exactly why I think it is clear that you've never actually read the 9th amendment. The ninth amendment gives no power to government whatsoever. All the ninth amendment says is that just because a right isn't enumerated (specifically listed, like the right to bear arms or the right to free speech), doesn't mean that right doesn't exist.
In other words, considering the two examples you have given so far, you have either never actually read the amendment or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Also, I see nothing in the 9th about rights "not" enumerated, but I do see the description of rights that specifically "are enumerated", and the end of the clause does not say probable rights, or some future right, or rights not listed, or not yet listed, or someday to be listed........what the end of the clause really does say is "others retained by the people" using the past tense "retained", not soon to be retained or perhaps someday when we find some new rights......are you sure you are not confusing the 9th with the 10th?
Are you going by what the constitution really says or by someones' interpertation?
What makes you think the 9th amendment can't be enforced? It is enforced (or at least used to be enforced) all the time by the courts, whenever some non-enumerated right is infringed upon by the government and the courts tell the government to stop doing whatever it is doing.
Also, I see nothing in the 9th about rights "not" enumerated
And that is why it is clear you have a reading comprehension problem. That's what "others" means in the context of "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
what the end of the clause really does say is "others retained by the people" using the past tense "retained", not soon to be retained or perhaps someday when we find some new rights......
That's because the founders aren't talking about "new" rights; just rights that were there all along. The authors wanted to make it perfectly clear that, just because a right was not listed, doesn't mean that the right does not exist or that the government can infringe upon that right.
are you sure you are not confusing the 9th with the 10th?
This is probably the basis of your confusion. You don't understand the difference between "rights" and "powers". The 10th amendment deals with powers, not rights like the 9th amendment.
This article, and subsequent posts are about, I believe, a federal judge overstepping in reguards to the Second Ammendment. I concur. And this is my point.........I do not believe the U.S. Constitution gives federal judges the right to decide law, (or, in other words, what a judge thinks the law should be).....I firmly believe that that right is specifically and clearly placed in the hands of Congress and the people.
When the constitution was being formed, there was plenty of conflict....some for slavery, some against....some for more states rights, some not....some for a stronger federal court, and those against.....etc., etc., etc. It got so bad, that Ben Franklin suggested that prayers should be offered regularly, and if I understand correctly, they were.
Now, Madison had his views, and many excellant ones, about what the constitution really meant before and after they finished writing it in September of 1787. And there were those who opposed Madison's views, with strong argument........and so on with other framers and other issues......there was much debate about areas that would eventually become the 9th Ammendment, also. George Mason walked out and didn't return.
We needed the constitution finished, it had to be finished. Notwithstanding slavery and individual rights, and a host of other issues, it was finished, (a work, I believe, that is the greatest government document ever written by the hands of men), and later ratified, leaving it up to future congresses to work out the details, the laws, the rights and powers. (I am sure, Technogeeb, that you have a very good knowledge of the history of the constitution, but there are some who read these posts that do not.)
Let me put it this way, if you bought a new car, and signed a contract of sale......it is not what the salesman told you as to what the contract really means that counts, not what the clerk told you that the contract says, not even what the owner of the dealership tells you about what the contract really means, (and, they could all be right or wrong in their advice)........very plainly, it is the very words in the contract, (the "law"), that really matters if you you find yourself in financial or legal difficulties.
I can find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal courts the right to create laws....also, I have yet to find anything that leads me to believe that the federal courts are supposed to be a check on the congress. The presidental veto, the voices of the people, and their votes are a check on the congress. In addition, the two house check each other, and even check themselves.
I firmly believe that it is the job of a congress, elected by the people, under a guaranteed republican form of government, to "make all laws". Therefore, I believe that it is the job of a congress to decide what the laws are in respect to the 9th, not some recent graduate of law school, through the supreme he or she happens to be "clerking" for. Now the key word in the 9th, I believe, is the word "retained". Retained not only means "in reserve", but also things "already listed". It is up to the congress to make the laws in respect to this ammendment, the Ninth Ammendment.
We have seen from years past, what the federal courts have done to darn near gut the constitution. Today, it only takes 5 unelected judges, contrary to a republican form of government, to, at times, actually "make the laws of this land". Even lower courts have been getting into the action, as this article on the Second Ammendment points out.
Marbury vs Madison was terribly flawed, and the supremes have been wrong about a host of other issues and laws....slavery....abortion, sodomy....education....free speech, and yes.....the Second Ammendment.
More guns mean less crime.
More conservatives make a better congress.
A better congress makes for a better America, except for those who want to break laws, spread disease, ruin the lives of children, and overthrow this government.....have I left anybody out?
And that's where most people are on the issue when you get right down to it - if they are honest about it. And the damn politicos (including the corrupt judges - who are legion) know it. The Constitution no longer has any meaning to those elected to office. The RKBA has been changed to the PKBA and that isn't going to change anytime soon. No, I don't lik eit, but I don't see anyone running for office or currently in office who is willing to actually stand up for the RKBA when really pinned down. They, too, have a vested interest in the status quo.
Reagan appointed him to the D.C. Superior Court, not a federal court. Two different animals.
I can find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal courts the right to create laws....
Of course not; let me make it clear that I do not advocate the current trend of "creating new rights from whole cloth" that many judges seem to practice, since most of those so-called rights are nothing of the sort. But that being said, the text of the 9th amendment remains very clear in that just because a right is not enumerated does not mean that such a right does not exist.
very plainly, it is the very words in the contract, (the "law"), that really matters if you you find yourself in financial or legal difficulties.
On that point I do not disagree, but the problem is that the text of the Constitution is very clear; in every case I have seen of people misunderstanding the document, it has been because of an inability to comprehend the English language (for example, those that try to assign "rights" to government instead of "the people" in the 2nd amendment, or those like FDR who take the "necessary and proper" phrase as a blank check when it explicitly only applies to the previously enumerated powers).
I firmly believe that it is the job of a congress, elected by the people, under a guaranteed republican form of government, to "make all laws". Therefore, I believe that it is the job of a congress to decide what the laws are in respect to the 9th
The problem here is that our federal government is NOT granted the power to "make all laws"; but only those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specific powers that are explicitly delegated to it. Even if that were not implicitly spelled out in the body of the Constitution itself (which it is, even though perversions of English and a general ignorance of the actual text of the document have allowed government to ignore that limitation), the 10th amendment (dealing with powers, not reserved rights as in the 9th amendment) makes the point in language that simply cannot be misinterpreted except by someone who either has questionable mental faculties (insert many Democrat and, unfortunately, many Republican politicians here) or who is engaged in deliberate deception (the vast majority of the remainder of those politicians previously mentioned).
Now the key word in the 9th, I believe, is the word "retained". Retained not only means "in reserve", but also things "already listed".
No it doesn't. "Retained" means to hold secure or intact, to keep (a person) in one's pay or in one's service, or to keep in one's possession. In the text of the 9th amendment, it is quite clear what is meant. The text of the amendment is about rights (not powers like the 10th), and the use of the word "retained" is to modify "others", which is specifically "other" rights other than those enumerated (1st, 2nd, etc.). The authors intended a clear statement to the effect that just because a right wasn't enumerated didn't mean the right didn't exist or wasn't protected; the people retained those other rights as well.
We have seen from years past, what the federal courts have done to darn near gut the constitution
This is certainly true, but it is no less true that the Congress has done a terrible job at conforming to the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution. Similarly, the Presidents (including, sadly, our current one) have shown that they are more than willing to ignore the text; doing not only what the Constitution does not allow, but even going so far as to do such things that it specifically forbids ("CFR", for example).
In any case, I suspect we share a similar, if not common, view of the problems currently plaguing our current government. My initial reply should not be construed to suggest that I am opposed to your position, just the particulars by which you were advocating that position (specifically, the suggestion that the 9th amendment, a clause intended to secure individual rights not explicitly enumerated from the potentially tyrannical hand of government, could actually grant that government any actual power beyond securing those non-enumerated rights).
What all this means is that Congress is not limited to the *other* enumerated powers delegated to them in Art. I Sec. 8, it does not mean they are not subject to the Bill of Rights, not even the 10th amendment, since they have been delegated exclusive legislative power over the district. The people of the district are still part of the people of the United States, whose RKBA shall not be infringed, who have the right to petiotion the government and to freely assemble, and so forth.
Art. I Sec 8 grants them the power:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
Art IV
states:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States
It's not clear to me wether DC is a terrority belonging to the United States, but it hardly matters. This delegated power is what gives Congress the ability to legislate on general matters, as opposed to those enumerated in Art I, in respect to territories not part of any state.
Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights are amendments, and supercede the basic articles if there is a conflict.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "others" would be unenumerated rights.
I’m no lawyer, but as I understand it, amendments trump the original Constitution. Thus, since the 2nd amendment is indeed an amendment, it amends — it changes.
It therefore hamstrings any government in the US from infringing on the right to bear arms.
I don’t blame our government leaders for trying to find loopholes to protect themselves; that is only common sense in a world of high tech fatwas and leftist fanatics. But so far as constitutional interpretation is concerned, we have strayed off that path for a long time. It’s gone way beyond any figment of common sense.
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.