Do you have any idea of what exactly this means?
Perhaps they are referring to a gun-rights case actually being put before the SCOTUS on true 2nd amendment grounds, which that case in DC you pointed out in your post #168 may very well end up being.
Posted on 01/07/2005 9:56:54 AM PST by neverdem
Readying for a constitutional showdown over gun control, the Bush administration has issued a 109-page memorandum aiming to prove that the Second Amendment grants individuals nearly unrestricted access to firearms.
The memorandum, requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was completed in August but made public only last month, when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel posted on its Web site several opinions1 setting forth positions on various legal issues. Reaching deep into English legal history and the practice of the British colonies prior to the American Revolution, the memorandum represents the administration's latest legal salvo to overturn judicial interpretations that have prevailed since the Supreme Court last spoke on the Second Amendment, in 1939. Although scholars long have noted the ambiguity of the 27-word amendment, courts generally have interpreted the right to "keep and bear arms" as applying not to individuals but rather to the "well-regulated militia" maintained by each state.
Reversing previous Justice Department policy, Mr. Ashcroft has declared that the Second Amendment confers a broad right of gun ownership, comparable with the First Amendment's grant of freedom of speech and religion. In November 2001, he sent federal prosecutors a memorandum endorsing a rare federal-court opinion, issued the previous month by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, that found an individual has the right to gun ownership. President Bush adopted that view as well, saying that "the Constitution gives people a personal right to bear arms," and doesn't merely protect "the rights of state militias," in an interview published days before last year's election in National Rifle Association magazines.
The new Justice Department memorandum acknowledges that "the question of who possess the right secured by the Second Amendment remains open and unsettled in the courts and among scholars," but goes on to declare that...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
What are the first five words of the First Amendment? In particular, what is the first word?
What authority should Congress have over theatrical vocalizations that an "absolute" interpretation of the First Amendment would disallow?
The "lecture" was to point out that you were failing to recognize that the burden of justifying any infringement is on the government. The Second Amendment offers no latitude for such infringements.
Whether nuclear weapons SHOULD be outlawed for civilian possession is not relevant. Few argue that they are not "arms".
You don't have to overtly support infringements of the right to keep and bear arms to be part of the problem. It is sufficient to suggest that the courts should decide which arms are protected without Constitutional authority to do so.
You have suggested that smallpox cultures or poison might be suitable for prohibition because they are not "arms". In 1939 the Supreme Court failed to protect a defendant from a criminal charge for possessing a short-barreled shotgun because it may not be "suitable".
In both cases, there is a presumption that the government can outlaw "stuff" without proving that such stuff do not constitute "arms". I challenged you to disagree, and if you disagree, to suggest a new Amendment clarifying the protection of the Second Amendment.
The key point I would make is that criminalizing possession independent of an otherwise criminal act is prior restraint and should not be tolerated. It infringes the rights of the law-abiding and barely inconveniences the criminals.
Common sense and a little research please. " The security of a free state" part was most certainly a prevention of the SLAVES in the era from bearing arms, therefore in my FUNDAMENTALIST view, those convicted with due process, during their enslavement to the state, SHALL be infringed.
Unless of course, we Issue a 9mm upon admission to our penal facilities for an extended vacation...
President Dubya, you da man! - Seaplaner
What in the he!! makes you think a piece of paper, ie, a law , constitutional or otherwise would prevent said mooslimb from nuking D.C.?
Read the appropriate portions of the Federalist Papers, and the intent of the framers is vividly clear.
The Second exists so the people can control the State militias and standing Federal army by force of arms, if need be. What else would keep the militia well regulated, a condition necessary to the security of a free state?
Keep in mind that "Militia" was defined in English Dictionaries at least as late as 1814 as "The Army, in its entirety", and that States were considered individual soverign political entities until the War Between the States rendered the Federal Government into a National Government.
Actually, actually, the Court made some comments and remanded the case. My reading of their decision is consistent with the idea that the lower court which ruled that the Second Amendment protected the defendant should offer the prosecution the opportunity to continue with their case, but that the PROSECUTION would have to prove that the shotgun is NOT suitable.
How could there possibly be such a burden on the defendant? Next we would have people charged with bank robbery forced to prove that their withdrawal was from their account or people charged with murder forced to prove that the "victim" died of natural causes.
For "the people", substitute "all free persons", and one gets a reading which is logical, consistent, and shows how Feinstein et al. see the U.S. populace.
thanks for clarifying my rant... 8>)
Hey they push that through. The liberals will be screaming about how the U.S. will become a slaughterhouse. How will they explain the huge drop in violent crime? I'm sure they'll come up with some twisted, cryptic rationale.
Public Skuul teaches that it IS a "living document", made so by constantly being reinterpreted to remain relevant to the present.
I understand your point, but I clearly recall being told strait out that the constitution is a "living document" on many occasions.
The taxpayer funded liberal indoctrination camps K-12 would suspend any student with the temerity to argue otherwise.
Many post here have pointed out examples of Colleges that have no greater tolerance for historical accuracy and proper understanding of our constitution than the primary schools.
This is why I had to relearn so many things after escaping the public schools!
RKBA is a right, not a priveledge, it is not subject to any legitimate regulation under the constitution.
All those in prison merely for "gun control" infractions are political prisoners.
True, as far as you & I are concerned. However, look up militia in a pre-1970 dictionary and then in a post 1980 dictionary.The definitions are quite different. The anti's will stop at nothing.
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Do you have any idea of what exactly this means?
Perhaps they are referring to a gun-rights case actually being put before the SCOTUS on true 2nd amendment grounds, which that case in DC you pointed out in your post #168 may very well end up being.
That was in 1939.I remember in the late 1960's hearing about Soldiers and Marines caring sawed off shotguns in the jungles in Vietnam.
That would have been deadly medicine for a banzi charge.12guage 00 Buck.
dictionary shmictionary... the US Code is pretty clear, and what matters is what the Founders meant by that word.
I pimp-slap gungrabbers with this all the time - and it does shut them up.
but you do not err: the hoplophobes will never ever stop, and no trick is too low for their use.
Your anti-gun streak is showing. Aren't you the one who claimed that some federal gun laws are constitutional?
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.