Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found

Human Events ^ | 15 March 2007 | Mac Johnson

[RKV]

IANAL - BUT, I can google up the legal definition of the militia - see [US Federal law] TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Most people don't understand that they already legally a member of the militia if they fit those criteria (male, a citizen, aged 17-45, not a member of the military, and for ladies, if a member of the National Guard).

[Leg Olam]

'Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, saying the Second Amendment did not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.'

[RKV]

aka Stockholm Syndrome: a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage can show signs of having feelings of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. I agree, we have had our rights suppressed for so long, we don't know what liberty is anymore.

[RKV]

Might take a look at the Militia Act of 1792, which basically required all military aged males to own a military weapon(s) (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm). How that morphs into "no citizens can't have a standard issue military rifle" (i.e. in today's usage, a burst fire M-16 or M-4) is a long an sordid story.

[goldstategop]

The only time liberals love the military is when they can trudge it out as an argument to disarm law-abiding private citizens. If they had it their way, they'd disarm our military first.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[NorthFlaRebel]

In addition to which, and simply stated, why should "the people" have a different meaning in Article Two than it has in any other article of the Bill of Rights?

This fundamental question was raised specifically, and logically and correctly addressed by the appeals court majority.

And I think this is where an appeal of this decision hits the ultimate snag. The SCOTUS would be forced to rule that "the people" mean different things, which I can't see any of them really doing with a straight face. Many times, courts leave an opening for the next court. It seems like this appeals court covered almost every base.

If this is overturned, I can't imagine the reasoning that would be used.

[RKV]

So the judge (and use that term loosely based on her performance) says the First Amendment doesn't apply in DC either? I think the judge would want to weasel out of that statement.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left.
<<

It is not anywhere that easy, indeed may I suggest it is worse than you think. To a leftist, reality is but one source of the bricks, mortar, beams and other supplies which they can pick and choose to assemble and sustain their personal, alternate, emotional and mental reality.

How the left relates to the Second Amendment is a wonderful and very succinct, example. To a leftist, the words become easily separated bricks that can be reassembled to construct an Amendment that says what they want it to say. The words are the same, but the meaning is totally different. Not opposite, but sufficiently different that it destroys the true intent of the plain text.

Given the principle that he who controls the meaning of words, controls the outcome of the debate, leftists run up against words that are inconvenient to their desired outcome. Not a problem! Just change what the words mean! For example, "people" are not people in their Amendment, they are states.

Further, if you read the Court's opinion, you will find that the District of Columbia is not a State, so the Bill of Rights does not even apply! I'm not making this up.

Of course, that absurdity was necessary and convenient to argue for this one case. If we were litigating the arrest of an anti-war protester, of course the left would insist that if the First Amendment applied anywhere in the territory of the United States, first and foremost, it would apply in the District!

[goldstategop]

If we follow the argument of the Left's new hero, dissenting Judge Karen Le Crft Henderson, DC's inhabitants should have no constitutional rights whatsoever. Now we know how the Left feels about the n*ggers on the federal plantation known as DC; it wants them kept there unfree, servile and dependent. When you strip away the high-sounding platitudes, liberals still have a racist view of people of color.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Leg Olam]

And to think she was nominated by Ronald Reagan.

[DelphiUser]

>>The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left.

Sadly, I have met many liberals who have trouble carrying one thought coherently and two is hopelessly beyond them.

[righthand man]

for later

[goldstategop]

Yep. Stupid arguments are still that - stupid. No amount of sophistry will change either their moral bankruptcy or intellectual incoherence.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[RKV]

The Supremes are going to have to deal with this modern precedent - "'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community... " (U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 [1990])

[RKV]

Maybe she thinks there is some "federalism" issue here - IANAL, and I think not. The remedy for her situation is clear - impeachment. Personally, I think its time for quite a few Federal judges to get another job.

[Gritty]

Great article!

[RKV]

FYI

[Enterprise]

Thank you all for those thoughtful and insightful responses. Bobjam touched on something that I'll comment on further.

If the Second Amendment were worded today, it would read something likes this:

The defense of a free nation requires the establishment, regulation, and arming of a strong military. Nonetheless, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

For decades now, the right to keep and bear arms has been regularly infringed, and all of the laws which forbid owning a weapon, or carrying a concealed weapon on your person, in your vehicle, or in your business are "infringements" and are flatly Unconstitutional.

[Enterprise]

oops - not likes this - like this (hate it when I do that)

[Psycho_Bunny]

Brilliant article.