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 ...
We shall see. Denying citizens their Constitutional rights is crime, IIRC. But I'm not holding my breath that some old ex mayor or ex councilman, is going to be hauled off to the hoosegow, although they by rights should be keel hauled.
So do the states, most of which have their own RKBA clauses in their state constitutions. Governments everywhere, especially those made of power hunger politicians, which is pretty much all of them, hate armed peasants.
Very strange then that document begins with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nothing in there about contracts between governments, or about governments at all. The Constitution was not ratified by the state governments, but by specially called state ratifying conventions. After approving the Constitution the national Constitution resolved:
That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification;
Oh, and I prefer the term "reasonably regulated given a compelling state interest" instead of "infringed".
Yup ...... I suppose that word really gets in your way .....
Roger that!
Cut four fingers off of your right hand and then count the remaining digit and you will know how many people give a damn about your opinion about how the Constitution should be rewritten.
You have a right to free speech and I have a right not to be slandered. Now what? Can't Congress step in and write laws protecting my right and restricting yours?
Of course they can. It's called a "compelling state interest". If the law passes the "strict scrutiny" test in the U.S. Spreme Court, it is valid.
So don't say they can't.
No, because it doesn't. You would use the term, "individual", "person", "man", "he", "him", etc., to describe an individual.
As far as religion, the press, and free speech, the first amendment doesn't say "the people" so I would assume an individual right. I could be wrong.
"And back to assembly -- I can understand the need for a permit when assembly is in a public place where the assembly infringes on the rights of others to use the public place, but assembly also refers to the right for people to meet in a private residence without fear of government intrusion or permission, right?"
Yes. I was trying to be brief to make a point. Did you want me to cover all cases?
"So, it seems that even within a single amendment are you saying that "the people" has different meanings between the semicolons"
It seems like you're inserting "the people" wherever you want in the same amendment, then accusing me of applying different meanings. Perhaps you should stop doing that.
No.
Your other rights may be reasonably regulated if there is a compelling state interest to do so and the law passes the strict scrutiny test in the U.S. Supreme Court. Your right to free speech may be regulated if you use it to slander someone else -- they have rights also. A permit may be required before people are allowed to assemble to ensure the safety of others. You have a problem with that?
You're bordering an anarchy, my friend. Slow down.
Interesting that those rulings were not, eh?
No. Because the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ...". It's right there. Plain as day.
Did you see something that said Congress cannot prohibit the interstate commerce of machine guns? They've been doing that for over 70 years and no one's caught it yet.
But, wait! YOU found something?!?!
Granted, there was no state infringement, but the court added that even if there was state action, it would have been allowed.
Ergo, Cruikshank supports my contention that the second amendment only applies to the federal government.
Agree 100%. Fortunately, if the Parker ruling goes to the supreme court and is affirmed, the feds will have to treat the 2nd amendment as an individual right, rather than a collective one.
I suspect that the feds (both republicans and democrats) will still try to regulate guns as much as possible though, "in the interest of public safety".
Unfortunately, police organizations are their best allies in this as they love to talk about how the People having access to guns makes their jobs so much more dangerous and difficult.
I believe I said the U.S. Constitution. And my question was "why".
You posted everything but an answer.
That had to do with disarming the people, not regulating arms. If a state disarmed its citizens, that would prohibit Congress from using their power to "call forth the Militia" to defend the country.
Sure there is. To cover their bases against people just... like... you. "But they didn't say 'the People', they said 'the people', and they didn't say 'State and Federal and Homerule City', so they must have meant just Federal even though they never drew a distinction as to who may not do the 'infringing' despite a 'Supreme Law of the Land' clause".
Shall not be infringed. By anyone. For any reason. The only reasonable way to remove access to this Right is to deprive them of their freedom via incarceration for an actual crime. Not this made up a priori garbage.
Here is where you lost Bobby.
He doesn't understand that we have individuals rights and has no clue what "shall not be infringed" means.
Don't let the door hit you ....
Ever here of the M9? How about the 1911?
Clueless Bobby strikes again...
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.