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 ...
Answer the question. Lacking an answer, I'll have to assume the answer is "yes" - which makes me wonder whose side you're on (law-abiding or criminals).
It would be silly for a state to pass a law saying that federal law officers cannot search cars, but if the Constitution says that a person is secure in their possessions (not that federal officials cannot not search your possessions), then that right of security should apply all the way down.
I'm saying that the Bill of Rights is a limit on the federal government only so far as it says what is not being ceded to it by the people and the states, not by saying what the Federal government only cannot do. If a right in the Bill of Rights is not ceded to the Federal Government, but retained by the People, then it is also retained by the People against the states, too, otherwise what does it mean to retain those rights?
-PJ
What's theoretical about defending yourself with a stick instead of a gun? I'd really like you to explain yourself.
"How then do you justify disallowing the basic ownership of the Glock"
It's a bit more than property, is it not? Render it incapable of ever firing and I'll defend your right to own it as property. Deal?
"How can you say you have the right to defend your life, but only the weapons approved by the government?"
It's called the police power of a state. Look it up. Educate yourself.
"And what is to prevent the government from limiting the choices of approved weapons ... to the point of inaccessibility"
Then that would interfere with the defense of the country, which then makes it a national issue..
I believe you are referring to the Declaration of Independence which has no legal power.
Which government? State? Local? Federal? Taiwan?
No, it isn't. Under the terms of the 2nd, 10th, and 14th A., those powers are "prohibited by it to the States".
The People were free to work within their state legislature to protect their individual liberties on the state and local level.
The whole point of the constitutional convention was to produce a national government that was acceptable to the states. The People and the States feared an intrusive nationalized government that would micromanaage local affairs.
The Federalists worked to craft a national government that would be strong enough to make the US a viable nation but still stay out of local affairs enough to make the individual states happy enough to ratify it.
That is why the Bill of Rights is a limit on federal power, not the states.
No legal power, but justification for revolution.
The 2nd amendment is not clear at all or we would not be in the situation we are today. Like you, I believe that the 2nd refers to an individual right and not a collective one, but with the unnecessary commingling of the "well regulated militia" phrase it muddies the water enough that it is almost useless.
Don't play dumb. Answer the question. Respond just as you have about analogous questions about the 2nd Amendment.
You know exactly what I (and others) mean, and you don't dare acknowledge it.
So? It has no relevance in this discussion as the Declaration was not adopted by our founders as a legal instrument when our constitution was ratified.
Quoting the Declaration of Independence in this thread is like quoting the bible or the magna carta. Powerful works that changed the world but have zero legal force in the US.
It is clear.
The problem is those who don't like what it says are trying to make it say something else. To their benefit, there is some anachronistic language therein. Without the preamble, they'd still be finding ways to explain it into oblivion.
I know it's a limit on federal power, but I understood that limit, in the Bill of Rights, to be applied as a statement of rights retained by the people (hence its name). If those rights are retained by the people, are you saying that they are retained only vis-a-vis the federal government while simultaneously lost vis-a-vis state governments, or are they rights inherent of the people regardless of which government entity they face?
It also explains the premise & philosophy behind the subsequent works, providing intent where such questions arise. Such questions have arisen, ergo the DoI is invoked to provide intent.
...otherwise we end up with interpretations which are profoundly contrary to what was, as indicated in the DoI, plainly intended. In no way did the Founding Fathers intend a system whereby citizens at large were largely disarmed by law.
You mean like the first amendment right of "'the people' peaceably to assemble"?
"Book clubs are formed to benefit the club members, but the club members don't exist to benefit the club."
You have to register with the state Book Club if you're between 17 and 45. (C'mon, we said the Book Club was necessary to the advancement of a modern state -- is this important or isn't it?)
You said: Book clubs are formed to benefit the club members.
You also said: The Militia ... exists to serve the purposes of its members.
So my analogy is holding up.
"So, how can a non-infringable right exist to only benefit the Militia and not the individual needs of its constituent members?"
It protects an individual right when used collectively.
Does that mean that one cannot stand alone on a street corner, but it's okay only if one is with a group?
-PJ
They are rights that are protected from federal infringment and therefore retained by the People. Although the People retained these rights in the context of the federal government the states were free to do as they pleased.
The People were very pleased with the states that they lived in at the time of the ratification and had no reasons to want protection from them. The fear was the loss of these rights by a tyranical national government which is why the constitution is a check on federal powers, not state ones.
The rights are retained by the People on in the venue of the Federal government. The 14th changed this, however.
I said that is the concept they are based on; I didn't say I agreed with the various lawmakers definition of "damage". But, by defining the effects of things like public profanity as "damaging" to some public good, the lawmakers justify regulating, just as they do by stretching the meaning of "interstate commerce" to include homegrown cattle feed and the Welfare clause to allow Federal education programs and welfare.
I asked why our laws should be LIMITED to that.
That is what this thread is concerning: the infringement of laws on Constitutional rights. We are not discussing traffic regulations.
I already told you. The Declaration of Independence refers to life and liberty as inalienable. The 14th adds property.
Now, give me more. Or admit you were talking out of your a$$, which I am starting to suspect. All hat and no cattle.
"respond to half of what I posted."
Because you have a way of going on and on and on -- like if you post enough words you'll have credibility or something.
Answer my question already.
Not really. If the framers wanted the verbiage of the DoI in the Constitution then it would have been included.
The Constitution went through an intense, difficult and heated ratification process and the language that was included in the constitution had to be well chosen. Each state had it's conditions and may compromises had to be made.
Whatever documents that existed before that were rendered moot.
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.