You sure do love The State.
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 ...
You sure do love The State.
To the contrary: they never questioned whether Miller was part of a militia, or whether that militia had assigned him use of that item. The line of reasoning was completely toward: so long as the item was suitable for militia use, Miller as an individual could individually keep & bear it.
In his reasoning, only those with library cards may read, and the library may decide which books that particular cardholder may read, and where and how. Bookstores could be prohibited from selling to anyone but libraries, or sell only under the library's terms. Particular categories of books could be banned outright.
And no, he doesn't have a problem with that.
Ping robertpaulsen with that link. He needs to read it. He obviously hasn't.
JeffAtlanta responds
From the very beginning 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.
Protecting those "official religions" were why the 1st started with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," - a State 'establishment of religion'.
--- The right of the people to the free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances is protected from ~any~ level of governmental infringement, fed/state/local, by the supremacy clause.
It was not until the 14th amendment and subsequent "incorporation" SCOTUS rulings that certain Bill of Rights protections have been applied to the states.
So claim the 'states right/incorporation' political faction. -- Most serious readers of the Constitution realize that Article VI 'incorporated' any Amendments, -- as the "law of the Land", - laws that state/local officials had to support by oath...
- at this point in time, the SCOTUS has not yet ruled that the 14th amendment 'incorporates' 2nd amendment protections to the states.
And we all know why they cannot so 'rule'. -- Such a ruling would collapse the legal fiction of incorporation doctrine, -- that States can ignore "shall not be infringed."
Would you support disbanding the BATFE?
Well, that is indeed true. But, "The battle is not always to the strongest, nor the race to the swiftest, but that's the way to bet."
"Would you care to elaborate?
Yes.
An American citizen who is of age, mentally stable, with a clean criminal background (no misdeameanors or felonies), clean driving records going back to 30 years, who partakes in community affairs and who is well educated will not get a permit unless other people say it is OK for him/her to get that permit. Iow, I, an American-born citizen, cannot get a permit solely because the constitution grants me that right - other people in the community - eg, friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, relatives etc - must also OK it.
Drat! I had one hell of a reply, too.
Bookmarked.
For the last time, no it doesn't. The second amendment doesn't say "an armed citizenry being necessary to the security ...".
It's very specific. It says not only "Militia", but a "well regulated Militia". The U.S. Constitution itself says that officers of those Militias are to be appointed by the state and that arms will be provided by the federal government. In 1792, Congress wrote the Militia Act specifying exactly the organization of that Militia.
Now you come along and tell me that the second amendment is simply referring to a bunch of people arming themselves? Wrong.
The 14th amendment says (in part): "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
On a case by case basis, activist courts have said that some right (speech, press, privacy, whatever) is so fundamental to the concept of "liberty" in the 14th amendment that the states must also protect this right. It may not be denied any citizen without individual due process.
This in contrast with your apparent opinion, which starts with "EVERYONE is excluded, except for whom gov't officials specificially invite/order in".
you come along and tell me that the second amendment is simply referring to a bunch of people arming themselves?
Yes. That's exactly what we, many Freepers, the DC Circuit Court, the 5th Circuit court, the Superior Court of New Jersey, the Supreme Court of Vermont, and an otherwise large and growing number of high courts are telling you; those who tell you otherwise indicate they either don't like what the 2nd Amendment says, or just want to stay out of that argument.
The point of broadly permitting "the people" RKBA is precisely so an already self-armed-and-trained militia can be drawn from the general population on short notice. And it's not "permitting", it's "recognizing the pre-existing right of".
Presumably "liberty" includes "freedom to exercise pre-existing rights".
Well, all amendments, correct? So, all the amendments apply to the states and have since the Bill of Rights was written, correct?
Yet NONE of the amendments were ever enforced against the states. States were banning the press, free speech, establishing their own religions, searching without a warrant, conducting civil trials without a jury, allowing defendants to incriminate themselves, on and on. All against the Bill of Rights. Yet not a peep. Not ONE U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying that the states were violating the Bill of Rights. Not ONE! For 150 YEARS!
And you say this was due to "ideology, to pure power, to ignorance, to misinterpretation, to an out and out intent to ... and destroy the ... integrity of our Republic".
Uh-huh. Sure. What else could explain it, huh?
Who would enforce federal law? No one?
Let me get this straight. Congress can regulate interstate commerce, right? I mean, you do agree they can do that, right?
They just can enforce it. How special.
Takes a while for the problems to be identified and articulated within the given paradigm, and pursued within the system. Example: it was a long time, and took a lot of effort, before women and slaves were recognized as citizens with the rights thereof. This whole "we the people", "inalienable rights", etc. thing is relatively new, and took people quite some time to figure out - especially when faced with people like you determined to hinder individual exercise of rights, coming up with complex non-sequitors which must be [somehow] understood and countered (like someone isn't a citizen because of their skin color).
My question concerns only the sentence structure and grammar of the statement.
Who can read books? Please answer. It's not that difficult.
Yep. It took about 150 years for some court to realize that "Congress shall make no law ..." really really meant "No one shall make no law ..." and started applying that protection to state laws.
That's some paradigm!
The 2nd Amendment applies to the feds only, right? that's what you keep saying. Well, then the BATFE must largely be disbanded (or at least redirected) precisely because it infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am a member of the militia, per unilateral act of Congress. I am registered therewith, and "regulated" as Congress sees fit. I want an M4 to practice with and have ready should I be called up. ...but the BATFE won't let me have one. Does that not infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms suitable for militia use?
No, the "join the National Guard" argument doesn't fly. They're a _subset_ of the militia. I am a member of the militia, just not within that subset.
No, the "keep it at a federal armory" argument doesn't fly. "the right of the people to KEEP ... arms" is not satisfied if only the gov't can keep them.
No, the "own something else" argument doesn't fly. M4s are the standard military weapon - not muskets.
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.