Posted on 03/12/2007 10:10:00 PM PDT by anonsquared
Amendment II
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.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to put restrictions on what the Government can do, not what the PEOPLE can do.
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.
I wish a Civics class was mandatory for FR participation.
Civics taught by leftests is an even greater danger than simple profound ignorance......
Fair point.
I don't like any of Giuliani's politics (except for his tough law-enforcement credentials for going after crooks). However, I do know that he tends NOT to parse words. If he had meant "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals," he would have used words to that effect. If he says "reasonable restrictions," it means he is casting a broad net, and you, I, and every other legal gun-owner would be the target of said "reasonable restriction."
I think you should go post on the Brady Center forum instead of FR, quite frankly.
I think that he`s right by the way, do we want convicted felons to have firearms?
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
November 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO ALL UNITED STATES' ATTORNEYS
FROM:The Attorney General /s/ John Ashcroft
RE:United States v. Emerson
On October 16, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Emerson. I am pleased that the decision upholds the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) - which prohibits violent persons who are under domestic restraining orders from possessing firearms. By taking guns out of the hands of persons whose propensity to violence is sufficient to warrant a specific restraining order, this statute helps avoid tragic episodes of domestic violence. As I have stated many times, reducing gun crime is a top priority for the Department. We will vigorously enforce and defend existing firearms laws in order to accomplish that goal.
Emerson is also noteworthy because, in upholding this statute, the Fifth Circuit undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials and specifically affirmed that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms. . . ." The Court's opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that ***reasonable restrictions*** cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
....
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-8780.resp.html
(at bottom of page)
If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting REALLY f#$%ing sick of people who are clueless on the 2nd Amendment insulting my intelligence by claiming that Rudy's views are consistent with it, and actually thinking that I'll buy it. You people are doing more harm than good by spouting this nonsense. For the sake of your guy, consider shutting up about guns.
"I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: 'Freedom of assembly' and 'freedom of speech' and so forth. Of course, they don't allow them to have those things, but they're in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions -- everyone has one -- and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple -- that's why you don't notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference. All those other constitutions are documents that say, 'We, the government, allow the people the following rights,' and our Constitution says 'We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.' We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that's the whole story of the difference--why we're unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we're going to overcome." -Ronald Reagan
No matter what the MSM tries to foist upon us, I will never vote for a gun-grabbing socialist either. Buh-bye, Rudy, thanks for playing.
Watch him turn on the Republicans when we oust him from party contention. He will call us names and turn on our party. Those of you pushing Rudy should be ashamed of yourselves.
For the sake of your sanity, you need to learn there are other people in the US besides the gun nuts.
>>So there you have it folks, you have the right to keep and bear arms SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS!<<
This would be OK if by reasonable restrictions he meant restrictions in keeping with founder's intent - i.e. limited to weapons that a militia would need. That would not include WMD's but would certainly include rifles that militia of the current period would carry - certainly that would include AK-47s etc.
But I bet that is not what Rudy meant.
They're called liberal pansies.
"[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' only recognizes a right, it is not conferring a right at all. If the constitution conferred rights to the people, then there would be no need for States.
> try reading the other first nine amendments.
First nine has nothing to do with States or people, but everything to do with prohibited acts of Congress. The court and framers always had said as much.
Interesting they find the second is a individual right, yet claim they cannot address state gun control. This tells me they know their ruling is is on life support.
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.