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 ...
That, and the interstate system. In today's mobile society, states as a collection of like-minded people bounded by geography and terrain, plus the 17th amendment that broke state control in Congress, made the old concept of states meaningless.
-PJ
Could you show me how to make PDF to HTML conversions, or where to find out?
The answer is really the same to all your questions -- it is up to each state to decide. And that decision depends on the state constitution, not the second amendment.
As a Duncan Hunter supporter I must say that this statement "legislation to allow reciprocity among states with concealed carry rights" perplexes me a bit.
If the Second Ammendment means that we all have the right to keep and bare arms, and Duncan Hunter really believes that, why then would legislation be needed to allow it between states? Hopefully it was just a misspeak, but I gotta say, it bothers me a bit he would say this in that way.
Yes, it's holding up. ...as an example of what is deeply, profoundly wrong with your premise re:RKBA. If we had the same restrictions on books as we have on arms, as indicated by your excellent analogy, we would have already had another revolution.
Book clubs existing only to benefit members thereof, and anyone not a member and/or not acting under its arbitrary rules may be denied the right to read or own books? Insane! Preposterous! Absurd! ...and equally so the right to arms your reasoning would deny us.
Take the hint from your own analogy.
Book clubs only viably arise from the right of the people to own and read books in general.
Militias only viably arise from the right of the people to keep and bear arms in general.
Any government which infringes on either of those rights gravely harms its populace and itself.
Good question.
Per the 2nd, we don't.
Per the existing infringement on the 2nd, and until the 2nd again prevails, such legislation helps move us in the right direction.
The state's police power was used to prohibit Saturday Night Specials, guns the poor used to defend themselves against criminals.
So how can 922(o) exist?
It also means that the Constitution is supreme over both. The BoR details some rights reserved directly by the people, and, in the 10th, forbids power over such rights to the States. Only in the 1st is the limit placed solely on the Congress, and the 7th on US courts, with the rest just stating certain reserved rights without reference to delegating power to regulate them to the States.
I agree ideologically that it is still a shame that we even have to have the discussion.
Jst the same, some fight to gain it all back with a landmark decision at the USSC, others try and gain it back one revoked, unconstitutional law at a time, others seek to regain one granted "concession" at a time.
Others live in places where they can own their own good collection of all types of arms, with plenty of ammo to go along with them, and keep in practise and teach their kids and grandkids.
It's all the same fight and even though some do it differently and may in their speech concede things I would not concede, still we are all fighting to see our rights restored to their full measure and the full intent of the inpiration of the founders in this regard.
"In 1981, Morton Grove became the first town in America to prohibit the possession of handguns. Victor Quilici, a local lawyer, sued the city (Quilici v. Morton Grove). The federal district court as well as the Appellate Court ruled the Morton Grove ordinance to be constitutional, thus upholding the gun ban. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court decision stand. The ban stands to this day as village code."
So don't say, "No, it isn't." Yes, it is.
Straining at a knat, using legaleze and double speak to "educate" us unannointed, 90 MILLION gun owners, whom tyrants and gun grabbers fear in their bones so greatly, that it shakes them right down to the heals on their feet.
As I said earlier on this thread, in the end, it is the 90 or so million who will decide. Hopefully, prayerfully, through the ballot box and electing statesmen to turn the tide (and there is great hope of this)...and if not, then at some future, tragic date (tragic in the sense it would ever have to come to that), then the 90 million will have to use a different type of box to make the same point just as our founders did.
What is your problem? You don't think the state can do that? You don't think states HAVE done that? Do you live in a cave, not paying any attention to what's going on around you?
Geez Louise. Get frickin' educated.
Hard "to assemble" by yourself.
Nuclear weapons should be verboten, not because they are weapons, but because of the inherent danger posed by the radiation. After all, you cannot legally possess a vial of radium, IIRC.
If you can ban the gun, you can ban the stick as well. And the use of the fist, and the defiant glare, etc., until the actual ability to defend the self is gone, with only the theory remaining. Then, there are the real world examples of 8 year olds defending their families with a handgun from home invaders, murderers and rapists. You think a stick would suffice in more than theory?
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?
No deal. It's a tool, just like a table saw or a computer. It is designed to accomplish a needed task, and rendering it incapable of the task negates the reason to possess it as property. Not only that, but it is a class of property that is specifically singled out as something the people can keep, without infringement.
But, tell you what, you can own any house you want, as long as it is unfit for habitation. Deal?
It's called the police power of a state. Look it up. Educate yourself.
Police power, like all governmental powers, are delegated to the State by the people. The power to infringe on the RKBA is specifically not delegated. Therefore, that is an illegitimate use of police power.
Then that would interfere with the defense of the country, which then makes it a national issue..
So, you think the defense of the Nation is what is not to be infringed by the government in the 2nd A.? The Government is not to be allowed to prevent the Government from defending itself?
There is no law so clear, but that a lawyer can obfuscate it.
And if a frog had wings he wouldn't drag his a$$ on the ground. We don't have those restrictions on books, so what's your point?
"and anyone not a member and/or not acting under its arbitrary rules may be denied the right to read or own books? Insane! Preposterous! Absurd!"
They MAY be denied if the state constitution allows it. Hey, if it's that important to the people of the state, PASS A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STOP YOUR WHINING ALREADY!!
"Book clubs only viably arise from the right of the people to own and read books in general"
Sure. And if the state wishes to protect an individual right to own and read books, they are free to do so.
But if you're talking about federal protection of books, they only protect the books as they relate to the formation of the Book Clubs themselves.
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.