Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms
realclearpolitics.com ^ | March 20, 2007 | Pierre Atlas

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 721-734 next last
To: robertpaulsen
A well-stocked library, being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Do you see a connection there between library and books or not? The courts do.

You sure do love The State.


181 posted on 03/21/2007 7:22:17 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Global warming turns people gay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Nothing in that process describes an individual right.

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.

182 posted on 03/21/2007 7:25:11 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane

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.


183 posted on 03/21/2007 7:41:17 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Ping robertpaulsen with that link. He needs to read it. He obviously hasn't.


184 posted on 03/21/2007 7:42:24 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; JeffAtlanta
El Gato wrote: "-- I see "Congress shall make no law" in the first amendment, but none of the rest of the Bill of Rights. So what makes you think that the rest don'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."

185 posted on 03/21/2007 7:45:06 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Again, that's up to each state. If the state wants its citizens to take certain weapons home or store some of the larger ones in an armory, that's up to each state. It is not the federal government's business.

Would you support disbanding the BATFE?

186 posted on 03/21/2007 7:46:39 AM PDT by jmc813 (The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "social conservative" issue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Just because a sequence of precident leads lower courts to a way to not say something they don't want to say doesn't make it right."

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."

187 posted on 03/21/2007 7:47:59 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"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.


188 posted on 03/21/2007 7:50:51 AM PDT by baubau (BOYCOTT Bank of America for Issuing Credit Cards to 3rd World Illegal Aliens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Hazcat
"I'm done reading your posts as they bring nothing to the discussion."

Drat! I had one hell of a reply, too.

189 posted on 03/21/2007 7:51:10 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bookmarked.


190 posted on 03/21/2007 7:53:39 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane
"My sentence structure exactly matches the sentence structure of the second ammendment."

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.

191 posted on 03/21/2007 8:01:07 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Then how does SCOTUS "incorporate rights to the states" via the 14th?"

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.

192 posted on 03/21/2007 8:08:08 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The 2nd Amendment was written without further elaboration (to wit: limitation) of who constituted the "militia". The Constitution does indicate Congress is to appoint officers thereof, but does not limit general membership therein. The Militia Act of 1792 does limit the membership therein - and does so AFTER the 2nd Amendment was written - but does so only in terms that broadly cover those individuals who were reasonably expected to serve (able-bodied males 17-45), excluding those who reasonably were not expected to serve (elderly, children, women).

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".

193 posted on 03/21/2007 8:16:20 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Presumably "liberty" includes "freedom to exercise pre-existing rights".


194 posted on 03/21/2007 8:17:38 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"Clearly stated, the Supremacy Clause states as regards the 2nd amendment, that the 2nd amendment is the supreme law of the land, any laws or constitutions of any state that say anything to the contrary notwithstanding."

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?

195 posted on 03/21/2007 8:19:07 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Would you support disbanding the BATFE?"

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.

196 posted on 03/21/2007 8:25:00 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

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).


197 posted on 03/21/2007 8:28:03 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Once again you try to avoid a direct question by diverting attention to some thing else. Hazcat has linked an excellent expert opinion of the sentence structure of a similar sentence.

My question concerns only the sentence structure and grammar of the statement.

Who can read books? Please answer. It's not that difficult.

198 posted on 03/21/2007 8:32:41 AM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Takes a while for the problems to be identified and articulated within the given paradigm"

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!

199 posted on 03/21/2007 8:34:19 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

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.


200 posted on 03/21/2007 8:36:10 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 721-734 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson