Posted on 03/12/2007 5:12:38 AM PDT by theothercheek
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When they crafted the Second Amendment, did the Founding Fathers intend that only those citizens already formed into a militia have the right to bear arms to protect the State? Or that all citizens have the right to bear arms so that they may be formed into a militia to protect the State?
If you’re a liberal or gun control advocate, the first interpretation makes sense. If you know how to read, it’s clear the Founding Fathers had the second scenario in mind.
Two of the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit know how to read, and ruled that District of Columbia's 31-year old ban against handgun ownership – the most restrictive in the nation – is unconstitutional and that the rights conferred by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on joining a militia:
"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
The appellate court also voided Washington, DC’s requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock (a triple redundancy!).
The case, Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia (No. 04-7041), involved six people living in high-crime neighborhoods in Washington, DC who were told by a lower court in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns and keep them in their homes for protection.
As The New York Times points out:
The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias. Nine other federal appeals courts around the nation have rejected that interpretation. …
Lawyers on both sides of the case said it had created a conflict among the federal courts of appeal on a significant constitutional issue, making review by the Supreme Court likely. The Supreme Court last considered the issue in 1939, and there are only scattered hints about how the current justices might rule.
While the MSM was mostly on target in discussing the legal implications of this ruling, there were a few wild shots about how laws preventing crazies and felons from owning guns are in jeopardy. For instance, The Washington Post quotes D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) hyperventilating that the ruling could "lead to the overturning of every gun control law in the city. I don't think we have any choice but to fight it."
The New York Times played the story surprisingly straight. But as usual, only gun control advocates were quoted; the views of those who applauded the ruling were paraphrased. Looks as though Adam Liptak couldn’t bestir himself to actually call a few gun rights advocates and scribble down their quotes. Looks as though Adam Liptak couldn’t bestir himself to actually call a few gun rights advocates and scribble down their quotes.
The Los Angeles Times quoted people on both sides of the issue by name, but took a few potshots at the appellate court, describing it as "staunchly conservative" and imputing political (if not sinister) motives to the judges in the majority by noting:
Silberman is a close friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. Three years ago, the White House chose him to co-chair a panel that examined the failure to find the expected weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the U.S. invasion.
Judge Thomas B. Griffith, nominated by President Bush in 2004 and confirmed by the Senate the next year, joined Silberman's opinion.
The third member of the panel, Judge Karen L. Henderson, dissented. She argued that the high court had made clear the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect a "well regulated militia," not individuals who want guns for their own uses.
She was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
The WasPo, which also noted that Silberman is "a staunch conservative," not only quoted those against D.C.’s handgun ban, but explained their position:
Critics have long said that the D.C. law is ineffective, noting that the city has had hundreds of homicides in recent years, most of which were committed with handguns. Of last year's 169 homicides, 137 were committed with firearms, D.C. police said. Enforcing the strict handgun ban is difficult with so many guns on the streets, but police recovered more than 2,600 guns last year.
This was not lost on the Court of Appeals. In a footnote, Silberman noted that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."
However, the WaPo's opinion writers must not have read this article because that same edition included an editorial that characterized the ruling as "radical" and stated that it gives "a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment." The editorial also suggests that the ruling came about as a result of "the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights" (emphasis, The Stiletto’s).
The last time the Supreme Court ruled on a Second Amendment case (United States v. Miller) the Justices stated that gun ownership rights were granted "with obvious purpose" of protecting the ability of states to organize militias and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
This new appellate court ruling does protect the ability of states to organize militias. It stands to reason that in times of national crisis, an effective militia can be formed only with citizens who already own – and know how to use – firearms. Someone who has never handled a gun before will be more of a danger to himself than to the enemy.
Further, in a crisis acute enough to require citizens to fight alongside our military there will be no time to teach millions of people how to shoot. Never mind the logistical impossibility of procuring and distributing guns to a geographically dispersed unarmed population quickly.
Clearly, individual gun ownership is at the crux of being able to form a well-regulated militia.
NOTE: In case I did not put all the links in correctly, please see the original source.
Here are 40 Reasons to Ban Guns:
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798401/posts
Yup, 40X. I'm going to keep your list handy when I get into the inevitable arguments over this ruling and gun control in general.
Thanks but the poster of the list is the one on teh fr tread at the end of my post.
I've got to find a way to print this list!
Thanks. It's a great list - and I know several people I can send the link to.
Copy & Paste always works good for me. ;~)
1. Highlight text. ( click on "40 ways.." and drag pointer to bottom of list )
2. Right-click on highlighted text and select "copy"..
Open Notepad or Wordpad.. ( Start-All Programs-Accessories-Notepad(or Wordpad)
Paste in Notepad / Wordpad..
Save As "40_Reasons_To_Ban_Guns" ( in the text format of your choice, .txt, .rtf, etc... )
Task complete..
Thanks for the post!
This is one reason why elections matter.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how Rudy would decide
this?
It's a pre-existing Right. The Second establishes a PROTECTION for this Right from infringement. It doesn't establish the Right itself.
That it took a court this long to figure this out should be ample evidence that we need an IQ test added to the bar exams.
While the MSM was mostly on target in discussing the legal implications of this ruling, there were a few wild shots about how laws preventing crazies and felons from owning guns are in jeopardy. For instance, The Washington Post quotes D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) hyperventilating that the ruling could "lead to the overturning of every gun control law in the city. I don't think we have any choice but to fight it."
Yeah, but why let the facts - or the ruling's actual text - get in the way of a hysterical sound bite?
He said he would appoint "strict construcitonist judges" to the appellate and Supremem courts ...
You're welcome! All I know is, I had Second Amendment rights the day I was born and by G-d, I intend to have them still on the day I die. From my cold, dead hands!
How come the "right" to abortion - which is never mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights - is not "broadly interpreted" when a woman can have an abortion on demand almost until the baby is in the birth canal???
What would Rudy do?
There is no question he would do the "right thing"... /dripping sarcasm
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.