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 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 721-734 next last
To: Repeal The 17th

"...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."

Simply put, no law of any state or any provision of a State Constitution can override the Constitution for the United States in its limitations on governmental authority and power. (No foreign treaty can, either, though our political masters don't want us to realize THAT inconvenient truth.) The Constitution for the United States is the SUPREME law of the land, period.


401 posted on 03/21/2007 10:10:17 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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... 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."
Thanks neverdem.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to practice their faith, to have no fear for holding their opinions or debate issues and controversies, to gather together in association, and to have an equal footing in their relationship to their government, being necessary for the success and prosperity of a free state...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

402 posted on 03/21/2007 10:30:44 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Sunday, March 11, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

bobby, the prefatory statement could say "The Cat in the Hat being a complete idiot" and it would not change the meaning of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed" one whit. Using a prefatory statement such as the one in the Second Amendment, in the common usage of the English language at the time of the Founders AND TODAY, does NOT modify the underlying meaning of the main sentence at all. The main phrase does NOT depend on the prefatory statement for one jot or tittle of its meaning. Ask any COMPETENT English teacher. And the Founding Dads were VERY competent in their use of language. Your tortured posturings reflect almost exactly the positions of the Brady Bunch and their nefarious ilk.


403 posted on 03/21/2007 11:12:08 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Thanks for the links. I'm bookmarking the thread for its links. I'll also note yours. Adios


404 posted on 03/21/2007 11:26:54 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Who's going to jail for denying DC citizens this right for thirty years?

But that said, no right is absolute. All rights have limitations and come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech does not include the right to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of worship does not include the right to polygamy or human sacrifice. There is always tension between individual liberty and "the public good." A primary purpose of government in a democracy is to seek the best balance between the two. The founders believed this as strongly as they believed in protecting individual liberty itself.

It doesn't include polygamy unless your Muslim.

405 posted on 03/21/2007 11:48:30 PM PDT by Razz Barry (,i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I'm very impressed. Duncan Hunter is very well informed on 2nd Amendment issues and is as articulate as many diehard banglist FReepers. More than that he is unequivocal about supporting the RKBA.

Duncan Hunter - '08

406 posted on 03/22/2007 12:03:23 AM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Quite so!


407 posted on 03/22/2007 12:06:40 AM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: South40

you are right I shouldn't be so lazy and ask you to look. I am sorry.


408 posted on 03/22/2007 12:30:25 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Why are you a sheep?

People shave sheep.

People kill and eat sheep.

Why do you post here as a sheep?


409 posted on 03/22/2007 5:17:44 AM PDT by Eaker (You were given the choice between war & dishonor. You chose dishonor & you will have war. -Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: ArmyTeach
Correct. Some states refused to ratify the U.S. Constitution without a Bill of Rights, though it was argued that one wasn't necessary -- ie., if the federal government wasn't given the power, for example, to regulate speech, then they couldn't regulate speech.

But the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, meaning Congress couldn't pass legislation infringing on the rights outlined in amendments 1-8. States were free to do so, provided their state constitutions allowed it.

That all changed 150 years later.

410 posted on 03/22/2007 6:03:48 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Never doubted it for a second.


411 posted on 03/22/2007 6:04:35 AM PDT by corlorde (New Hampshire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

And yes, it changed. Welcome to the 21st century, where citizens call for their enumerated inalienable rights be recognized thru all layers of gov't. The 14th Amendment exists now - cope.


412 posted on 03/22/2007 6:12:48 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Hard "to assemble" by yourself.

Insert protestor A on streetcorner B. Assembled.

413 posted on 03/22/2007 6:17:36 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
"Using a prefatory statement such as the one in the Second Amendment, in the common usage of the English language at the time of the Founders AND TODAY, does NOT modify the underlying meaning of the main sentence at all."

So the meaning of the second amendment is exactly the same with or without the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause means nothing and is just taking up space. Nothing else in the U.S. Constitution has a prefatory clause, but still, this one has no significance whatsoever.

And the Founding Dads were VERY competent in their use of language."

I agree. So why was the prefatory clause used there and nowhere else? Certainly they had a reason. As you said, they were very competent.

Oh well. It's a moot point. A large number of courts apparently can't understand English.

414 posted on 03/22/2007 6:17:39 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

Baa?


415 posted on 03/22/2007 6:18:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"And yes, it changed. Welcome to the 21st century ..."

Ah. You must be referring to this "living constitution" I've heard so much about. You support that, huh? Proudly, it looks like.

416 posted on 03/22/2007 6:21:13 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes, the state government may forbid the personal ownership of "books", provided the state constitution allow it.

Folks, robertpaulsen has just justified Communist-style censorship. So long as laws say a government can ban something - anything - books, arms, whatever - he's OK with it. In his reasoning (and I've been following it for thousands of posts) your "rights" exist only insofar as the words on paper permit their existance.

We're libertarians arguing philosophy with a totalitarian. Well, if someone fundamentally believes "Whatever those in power enact into law is fine", then arguing from a position of 'inalienable rights' won't get you anywhere with him - ever.

Seriously. He wrote his own analogy to the 2nd Amendment regarding a 'freedom to own books', and had no problem with the interpretation therof allowing the governement to ban private ownership of books outright under that analogy (_Farenheit_451_, anyone?), so long as a select staff was authorized to be in the library. Likewise, he has no problem with our current layers of government banning private ownership of arms, so long as the paperwork can be interpreted that way (and, of course, if it can't be interpreted that way, it can be changed to do so). Even faced with the flat-out federal ban of a category of militia-suitable arms enacted in 922(o), he doesn't see that conflicting with the 2nd Amendment; the Founding Fathers have apparently protected a right which can be legislated into oblivion, and he's OK with that interpretation.

Why he so adamantly promotes this totalitarian view of one right on a board called Free Republic, I don't know. Yes, robertpaulsen really believes this stuff.

417 posted on 03/22/2007 6:36:21 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We don't have those restrictions on books, so what's your point?

My point is your analogy leads to an absurdity - which exactly matches the same absurdidty led to by your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Thought it might shed some light on the flaw in your reasoning - apparently not.

418 posted on 03/22/2007 6:39:09 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Still waiting for your justification of 922(o).


419 posted on 03/22/2007 6:40:17 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
When a state is formed, it has police power. It's part of the definition of a state. It's not delegated. It just is.

Totalitarian.

420 posted on 03/22/2007 6:41:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 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