Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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 ...
But here is the catch how are you going to get your guns home. You wait they will find that loophole.
First of all "Miller" was not a lawsuit, it arose out a criminal prosecution, with Miller and Layton being the object. The trial court through out the indictment, because the law in question violated the Constitution, and thus was not a law at all.
There have been numerous cases since then, here's a sampling of Supreme Court cases touching on the issue (not every case on the list is post NFA as some bear on state laws, the "other Miller" for example), and Other court cases (not all of them federal)>
There have been many cases, not lawsuits, which are civil actions, where the Supreme Court refused to "grant cert" that is hear the cases, leaving the lower court ruling stand without creating national precedent or deciding the issue one way or another. They generally don't give there reasoning for doing so. IMHO they are ducking the cases, but that is only an opinion. Not all of the cases linked above, or even most of them, bear directly on the meaning and applicability of the Second Amendment, but all bear on "gun laws" of one sort or another.
Two examples of denial of cert, both fairly recent, are Silveria (9th circuit) and Emerson (5th Circuit).
Something that is being forgotten about a SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment. Its been pointed out several times on this thread that liberals haven't any interest in upholding the constitution, rather they seek ways to tear down its original purpose of protecting our God given rights. The majority of the justices are liberals. Their ideology will over ride any legal arguments. The DC ruling will not stand.
2. you may want to use a dictionary.
Oh please a dictionary tells you what the meaing was back then. It's a label. amd it doesn't tell you what the latest users are trying to sneak in under that label case in point liberalism:
Communitarianism is the other end of the libertarian spectrum, just as progressive is the other end of the conservative spectrum
-PJ
See post 117.
My use of "you" was meant to indicate a collective "you" not necessarily you individually.
I think ostracism is far more effective.
Individuals can do whatever they want, including ostracism. But governments cannot violate the restrictions of the Constitution. Arms are arms, if you want to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, no matter how "reasonable" the infringement, you must amend the document, or ignore it. The only exception, which your example comes close to, is where rights conflict. My right to drive down the street, may mean that you can't use that street for a protest march for example.
Thus restrictions on keeping area effect weapons would need to be subject to "strict scrutiny", to be certain that the regulations or restrictions do not deny the right protected entirely and are the least possible restriction on that right consistent with protecting other rights or the public safety.
Nuclear weapons, are *hard* to set off, they are most unnatural devices. Thus some minimal standards to be certain that a weapon wasn't dangerous unless the owner intended it to be would be OK, but pure bans would probably not be, since the end of protecting the neighborhood/city could be accomplished by less restrictive means than a pure ban. The same would be true of storage of ammunition for that 155mm, the piece itself is just a big boat anchor and not even a fire hazard without the ammunition.
The Swiss keep full auto assault rifles (or battle rifles in the case of the older folks) in their homes, and some keep heavier crew served stuff, as well as the demolition charges for the local bridge or bridges, which have built in chambers for the charges, but that's as reserve members of the Army (well not quite since when they "get out" they can buy the individual weapon and continue to keep it at home, or could last I checked anyway), but the control of the weapons is still individual, indicating that even heavy weapons can be safely stored by individuals. Similarly there are people who own howitzers, although most are older WW-II era weapons and of a bit smaller caliber, they just have to pay the darned tax, and have a big storage shed. Peaceable folks don't want to blow up their own house along with the neighborhood, and those who own such weapons have managed not to do so.
The biggest thing is that there is no line of demarcation. Even a .22 could kill the neighbor kid should it be accidentally discharged in just the wrong direction. (out the window and into the neighbor's window.
Remember the second amendment is no protection for the actual *use* of arms, and especially not their misuse, only keeping and bearing.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was for defense and security, both personally and collectively as a nation. Certainly any weapon, including a knife or small pistol can be used defensively or offensively. But the point is, the bearing of arms recognized in the US Consitution was meant as defensive and specific as to who they should be used against. Those would would threaten you as an incividual or collectively as a nation.
A nuclear weapon or primarily indiscriminate type of weapon type of WMD with great likelyhood of collateral harm to innocents was not intended. An anti-tank weapon or howitzer? Yes. A nuclear weapon or other WMD ... no.
It means that No state can pass a law, or have a State Constitutional provision, which conflicts with the Federal Constitution. If they have such "laws", the are null and void, just like any Federal law which violates the Constitution or a State law that violates a provision of that state's constitution.
Bears repeating.
The Constitution is merely a document that outlines the limits to be placed on government. Not a document that grants any rights whatsoever.
How sad that so many have forgotten or never learned this simple fact.
"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."
Thanks for the reminder. /sarc off.
My point is that we don't refuse to fight the good battle because we fear we might lose.
But now you could be right on target if the gun grabbin (BARF ALERT) Rudy Giuliani is elected President.
Constitutionally, in the 14th amendment's section 2, Which has teeth! Big nasty teeth in fact.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
If you are correct, and the Supremes hear the case and overturn the DC circuit, ruling that the right is a "Right of the states", it's best we find out now, rather than after the frog is more thoroughly boiled.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
There's always the possibility that my opinion that the SCOTUS is politicized and that their findings will be the result of ideology rather than legal argument is wrong. I certainly hope so. The problem is, I don't think so. Yes, it would be better to know the answer to that sooner rather than later.
I fight when I have to. I did two tours in Vietnam as a grunt. I had no enthusiasm before we got into Iraq because I feared what could happen during the occupation, especially here at home. I thought the NRA was trying to be prudent, preparing the battlefield in the hope that time would provide more more conservative nominees for SCOTUS. O'Connor has been replaced, thank God. If you read that decision, I think you'll agree that there's a very good chance that it will go to SCOTUS sooner rather than later.
El Gato: False test. Arms are arms. You don't like it, or want "reasonable restrictions"? Fine amend the Constitution, don't ignore it's plain language.
Whose test was a false test? Oh... mine. You're referencing me? 70
My use of "you" was meant to indicate a collective "you" not necessarily you individually.
Silly me. I thought you were referencing me in that paragraph. ;-)
It is always the writer's responsibility to ensure clarity in his and her writing, not the readers fault for not "getting it". I suppose you'll not make the same mistake and instead you'll use something like person (anonymous individual) rather than you.
Individuals can do whatever they want, including ostracism.
Individuals, that's unambiguous.
Arms are arms, if you want to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, no matter how "reasonable" the infringement, you must amend the document, or ignore it.
You, that's ambiguous. Why the switch to ambiguity?
But governments cannot violate the restrictions of the Constitution.
Actually, it's illegal, unconstitutional for government officials to violate the restrictions of the constitution. Discern between government (the whole of it) and government employee which as a part of government and can act. Much of government is inanimate.cannot: AUXILIARY VERB: The negative form of can
Government officials do violate the restrictions of the constitution. That's obvious. Therefore they can illegally violate the restrictions of the constitution.
Remember the second amendment is no protection for the actual *use* of arms, and especially not their misuse, only keeping and bearing.
I never thought otherwise. On this particular discussion I've focused on the aspect of storing various arms with regards to safety -- not the usage of the arms nor how the second amendment treats arms. So perhaps when you wrote, "Remember the second amendment..." you were reminding yourself. ;-)
From the very beggining the Bill of Rights have only applied to the federal government and not to the states. Some states even had an official religion after the ratification of the constitution.
It was not until the 14th amendment and subsequent "incorporation" SCOTUS rulings that certain Bill of Rights protections have been applied to the states.
RobertPaulson, has been 100% correct on his posts so far - at this point in time, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled that the 14th amendment 'incorporates' 2nd amendment protections to the states.
Nope, you are the one with the fundamental misunderstanding. The Bill of Rights affirms the rights of the People from the Federal government, not the state governments. Until the passage of the 14th amendment, the individual states could do anything they wanted in regard to individual liberties.
Wikipedia has a good primer on this subject. Just read the article Incorporation (Bill of Rights).
States had established state churches up until the 1820s, and Southern states, beginning in the 1830s, could ban abolitionist literature. In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights provided "security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government—not against those of local governments."
If potential damage to the neighbors is the standard by which legality is determined, all gas stoves and ovens should be outlawed (especially the Buick-sized 1950s one that was in this house when we bought it).
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.