That's OK. So do we.
Posted on 12/07/2006 11:58:08 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Scope of 2nd Amendment's questioned
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on high-powered weapons.
In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
""We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim"
Then you are idiots.
That's OK. So do we.
The Ammendement itself says it's a "right of the people." It does not say "right of the militia." Even if it did, the militial by Federal law (and original intent) is composed of all able-bodied males.
From my cold, dead, hands!
And, militias were comprised of WHAT?
Yep, ARMED INDIVIDUALS
Funny, but the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) is of, for and by The People. You cannot pick & choose which are applicable.
"Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional."
I do like that they mentioned civil liberties groups.
Good. Where is my M16 as I am in the unorganized militia under USC. A$$hat!
Rights given by God, not by men, and therefore cannot be taken away by men. That's what they said from the start, and my intention is to take them at their word.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Great answer Joe.
I am I allowed to believe that the the 2nd amendment means that people have the 100% complete right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily in all places at all times?
Sort of like "no weapons within city limits" is an age old tradition that is sensible in an area of dense population where the monopoly on power should lie with the authorities? In a modern context this might mean in specific areas within a city (stadiums, offices, etc.) where law enforcement can be expected to be present.
Perhaps I will get flamed, but I would never vote for a politician whose stance was anything less nuanced than this in terms of restricting the possession of firearms.
And that's why for it to be right, it has to be "right of the people." If it were "right of the militia," women would be left out.
(see tagline)
Women can't join militias?
I read the Bill Of Rights as individual rights. So you can interpret whatever you want, facts are facts.
In spite of militias having been defined as every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 46 way back in 1803 by the federal government.
I suppose we can join those private militias you hear about sometimes. But the Federal definition of "militia" excludes women (except, I think, for women serving in the National Guard).
Gee, how creative!
Never heard that argument before!
*rolling eyes*
Preach it!
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.