G'night... FReegards.
And...
Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.
Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment."
My coverage of the D.C. Circuit's oral argument appeared here on the afternoon of December 7, 2006. Posted at 10:08 AM by Howard Bashman
Exactly! The select militia acted as a national guard during the time of the founding, and was clearly separate from the generally understood meaning of the "militia", which was the citizenry outside uniformed services.
Further, that such a Right was so fundamental to remaining free men, that even those not subject to militia call up were to be afforded protection for this Right.
Pretty basic really. It's only when gun grabbers and lawyers start trying to find ways around it that things get messy.
Well... wrong. But nice try though.
It mattered to the Miller court, Mr. any-weapon-is-a-militia-weapon.
What a simpleton. How can you embarrass yourself like that? Have you no pride? No self-esteem?
The phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" pretty much means any weapon.
It is pretty clear to clear thinking people.
I think it's also important to note that the preable of the amendment is irrelevant, regardless of the use of the term "militia", because, as the Emerson Court ruled, the preamble does not limit the right, just as the "WHEREAS" clauses of any law (or contract even) are not construed as substantive clauses.
You said, "without those arms, there is no way for civilians to participate in militia duty." The National Guard manages to do it and the Guardsmen don't take their weapons home.
Pg 30
The District claims that Miller’s historical account of the “Militia” supports its position. Yet according to Miller, the militia included “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defence” who were “enrolled for military discipline.” And Miller’s expansive definition of the militia—qualitatively different from the District’s concept—is in accord with the second Militia Act of 1792, passed by the Second Congress.11 Act of May 8, 1792, ch. XXXIII, 1 Stat. 271. Of course, many of the members of the Second Congress were also members of the First, which had drafted the Bill of Rights. But more importantly, they were conversant with the common understanding of both the First Congress and the ratifying state legislatures as to what was meant by “Militia” in the Second Amendment. The second Militia Act placed specific and extensive requirements on the citizens who were to constitute the militia:
Of course, you'd know that if you'd bothered to read it.
You are plunging to new depths of stupidity here Bobby. Have you been drinking to excess tonight?
You have a learning disability.
The militia IS NOT the national guard. Never has been and never will be.
That is what I have maintained. However, these martial dispute cases are at times a horror story of unfairness and prejurous testimony which stigmatizes the ex (man generally) and disarms him unjustily.
Yet you say only citizens may keep and bear arms?
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.p> The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
This part, "to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.", shows that those pushing for a judicial "incorporation" doctrine are completely out to lunch. So, as such, it is instructive.
Poor you...
Read the decision. Or not. You are about as pathetic as kicking a puppy unless you do.
Then who would define that arm?
G'night... FReegards.
And...
Here's a hint: It doesn't need defining....
Perhaps the 2d is meant to apply to terrorists all over the world too. And whatever enemy we are fighting.
Yeah that's it it pertains to Martians too.
No, I do not see a pattern there. Free speech is free speech without limit. Yelling fire in a theater is not free speech, that is exciting a riot. Threatening to kill our President is not free speech, that is treason.
Unreasonable searches and seizure are well defined.
A speedy trial is as soon as reasonably possible.
Excessive fines are more than what is considered reasonable for the crime. Excessive punishments are more than what would be considered reasonable for the crime.
Sure, here we could parse free speech, unreasonable, speedy, and excessive. But in the 2nd Amendment, there is no slot for the parsing of "the right of the people..."
Gun grabbers will parse the meaning of "the people." And I see you seek to deny that part as well.
That's the pattern I see.
No.
This is the SECOND Federal Court decision that stated that the right ot keep and bear arms is an individual right - in recent times anyway.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????//
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.