Posted on 03/19/2007 2:18:07 PM PDT by neverdem
Our good and well-meaning friends in Chicago, Wilmette and other towns that have outlawed the possession of handguns, even in the sanctity and privacy of the home, might want to notice that the nation's second-highest court has tossed out a similar weapons ban.
By overturning a Washington, D.C., handgun ban 10 days ago, the district's federal appeals court affirmed that bearing arms is an individual right, in existence even prior to the writing of the Constitution. The ruling puts the court at odds with 10 of the 11 other federal appeals courts, which have ruled that bearing arms is a just a collective right, meant only to ensure that the civilians who serve in state militias are armed.
This doesn't mean that the D.C. decision applies here, but the conflicting rulings invite the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, where three sitting justices--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter--said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.
Self-defense is hardly an esoteric legal question for Hale DeMar, a Wilmette resident who was fined $750 in 2003 after shooting a man who burglarized his home for two consecutive nights. DeMar's fine wasn't for defending himself but for possessing a handgun, meaning that he should have used a baseball bat, I guess. Or called out the militia. (The burglar, Morio Billings, recovered from his wounds and got a 7-year sentence. He got out after serving 2 1/2 years and was promptly arrested for burglary, in Wilmette.)
The idea that you can't use arms to protect...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
yourself should not be tolerated by any free people. There. Finished the thought.
Something which should really put them on notice in places like Chicago is that the only one of the the three judges who dissented did so on the basis of her notion that, since D.C. is not a state, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't apply. Obviously, Illinois is a state.
Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.
Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.
When I saw that I thought to myself, "yep... thats exactly what I want my politicians to be ....scared."
If even two liberals like Ginsburg and Souter understand the intention of the 2nd Amendment then it's time to let the USSC rule on this issue once and for all. Look for the democrats who don't want that to happen to preempt an appeal and overturn the DC ban so as to keep unconstitutional guns laws in place nationwide.
Agreed, it's written in easy to understand plain English while hitting on every major point that those who favor individual rights have made in the past. I expect it'll find its way into many classrooms across the country.
If this is true then the other 10 federal appeals courts are manned by totally dumb idiots that cannot read the Constitution and have violated their oath of office.
That's such a sweeping statement that I have to wonder if it's really true.
I'd think it's more likely that at least some of the 10 other courts have not ruled it to be an individual right. That's a bit different than all of them having ruled it to be a collective right.
If they actually have ruled that way, I would have expected that Sarah Brady and the other gun-grabbers would be using it in their campaigns.
So, what we are saying here is, that freedom of speech is a collective, and not an individual right. You do not the have right of free speech unless you are a member of a well regulated Media.
I though that statement was reach. also. I would like to know which other districts have ruled it a collective right?
I would like to know why it makes a difference? Whether it's "states rights", "collective rights", or "sophisticated collective rights", it's not individual.
Thanks for the quote.
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.