Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem
On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional. The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."
It is quite likely that this ruling will be appealed to Supreme Court, which hasn't offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment since 1939.
Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."
The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."
But actually, to argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is a reinterpretation of the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.
One of the major concerns of the anti-Federalists during the debate over the Constitution in 1787 was the fact that the new document lacked a Bill of Rights. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the framers promised to pass a Bill of Rights during the First Congress as amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms became part of that package.
What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Was the right to bear arms a collective right for militias, or an individual right for all citizens? The "Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority," from the debates of 1787, is telling. This document speaks...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
When did the phrase "right to vote" enter the lexicon?
Especially since there is nothing written officially, publically or privately that addresses such a distinction between the two alleged meanings of "the people."
The creation of the BoRs was the subject of endless debate amongst hundreds if not thousands of men at the time. Reams of press were devoted to this debate. The idea that the phrase "the people" had two distinct meanings and no one ever even made a passing reference to that fact is ludicrous.
Not if that right is guaranteed by the Constitution. Sure, when an individual abuses his rights in a criminal fashion, then I believe he should be regulated. However, once he has done his time, paying his debt to society, and has been deemed fit to return to society, then all his rights and privileges should be restored.
Or do you think that your individual rights should take precedent, and screw everyone else?
That reads like a question a communist would ask. I believe that individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution takes precedent over any and all community concerns.
If the Constitution protects it, then all communities in the US are obligated to honor the Constitution. Any attempts to limit or remove Constitutional guarantees by communites are forbidden by the Constitution to do so. Anything short of an amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the protections contained within remain in full force without exception.
Whatever you're drinking, I'll have a double.
Honesty and reason with a dose of thinking outside the box is what I'm drinking. You're free to help yourself.
How many objects are there which would not be protected by a maximally-interpreted Second Amendment? Distilled alcohol may of course be used to make firebombs (surely firebombs predat Molotov). Most objects could be used to strike people. Making water into a striking weapon would have taken a few months (wait for winter) but it could certainly have been used as a weapon once frozen. Even a bag full of wet noodles could have been used as a weapon by stuffing the noodles quickly into the victim's mouth so as to cause choking.
You're arguing much more than 'semantics' PJ.. -- The communitarian's among us simply do not agree with the principle of "unalienable Rights".
-- To them, all rights can be alienated by majority rule.
~Any~ individual right can be regulated by the democratic process. The public good trumps constitutional freedom.
Is "communitarian" the 21st century version of communist, much as "progressive" is the 21st century version of liberal?
-PJ
"Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms"
Not in New York state.
True. But, as in the example of crying "fire" in a crowded theater, no restriction is acceptable before some harm has actually been committed.
Yes. It does. Your current unConstitutional gun laws "not withstanding".
I tried to buy them legally, but say you need references.
Don't tell this is OK, 'cause it ain't.
How is the little angel?
Fear the tyrant that fears your gun.
111
Oh yeah!
The gun grabbers know damn well what the Constitution means . They just change what they want it to mean when its suits their needs. It's written in plain English .
Yes. My point was that it shouldn't be or isn't necessary for an object to be designated a weapon in order for the right of the people to keep an bear that object not to be infringed. That in part, is what the 9th and 10th amendments essentially say.
| 12 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803825/posts?page=8#8 Your newbie bias is right there in you tag line. I note you didn't deny anything I wrote. BTW, I said nothing about communists. You may want to use a dictionary. communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist |
communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist
Well Renquist said that very same thing one time. That the entire federal gun control scheme is unconstitutional. Of coase it was not said in a case but the did say that.
Have you thought about that? They were afraid of losing a case involving the 2nd amendment? Oh well, the fearless Cato Institute has one upped them.
I wrote it was not unreasonable. If SCOTUS rules it's only a collective right defying logic, I wouldn't be surprised. Remember Lawrence, Kelo, Campaign Finance Reform, etc. That court had 7 pubbie nominated justices, IIRC.
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.