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 ...
There you go with the stupidity again. Read the Marine Corps "Improvised Weapons" manual. Anything from a ballpoint pen to improvised artillery are "militia" arms. Nor does a specific "arm" have to have a "militia" purpose to be protected under the Second Amendment.
Parker, which you obviously still haven't read, goes over this...
Now, who doesn't understand "shall not be infringed"?
Well said Marine.
Communitarian's still insist that there are ~other~ 'natural rights' that can be 'reasonably' regulated [read prohibited] when there is a 'compelling state interest' to do so [read legislative 'finding'] and if the 'law' passes the strict scrutiny test in the SCOTUS. [read 'if' a socialistic court agrees]
That is a private property issue.
It also violates the Constitution but that is irrelevant as our elected officials criminally violate it all of the time.
Now, who doesn't understand "shall not be infringed"?
You have had your ass handed to you on this thread just like every other freedom related thread.
Apparently you like looking like a fool. You do it well.
No. Average soldier means average fighting soldier in combat. The people actively involved in combat. One person using a weapon to kill another person in combat. You act confused, but I know you're not.
Try this. Consider an infantry battalion. What percentage of those soldiers are issued handguns by the military and carried into combat?
I'll settle for an educated guess on your part. If it's educated.
If the USSC follows the Miller precedent they will not be able to say that. That ruling was about "sawed-off" shotguns, and they were correct that they were not military issue. "Average" had nothing to do with it. It is a FACT that there are/were no issued "sawed-off" shotguns. But there ARE handguns, it is undeniable.
You are viewing a penumbra of an emanation of Miller, not the ruling itself.
If the USSC veers off and doesn't follow Miller, well I can't say it would shock me, it's not like they haven't done that before. If they make my handguns illegal, I'll just have illegal handguns.
See my post #619 for a close-up of this "red herring".
This should answer your question.
15-20%. Commanders, Corpsmen, Platoon leaders, Special fire-team members.... Depends on the mission requirements. Some may even be issued grenades, M240's, Master-keys, M-14's, or other equipment as necessary.
In combat, if you need to hit the bad guy with a ROCK, you do it. Anything is a weapon when your life is on the line. A fact you conveniently ignore. Makes you look intentionally stupid though.
Ah. So I can ban you and your gun from my restaurant but not a Negro. In Texas. Did you ever think you'd see the day!
"It also violates the Constitution but that is irrelevant as our elected officials criminally violate it all of the time."
The last refuge of someone who doesn't have a clue -- "It's unconstitutional!" Go read something and get educated.
In a 1000 man (light infantry) batallion some 300 will carry M-16s/M-4s and 200 M-203's . There will be some 200 M-9s issued. There will be approximately 100 M-249's and 40 M-240s/M-60s, The remainder will be a mixture of special weapons such as grease guns and sniper rifles.
You obviously have no clue how INVOLVED combat can get, average has nothing to do with it.
Light Infantry Battalion. This is the most austere conventional combat battalion; its organization differs most from that of the light armor battalion. This battalion has only three rifle companies and a headquarters company. The light infantry battalion is an austere combat unit whose primary strengths are its abilities to operate under conditions of limited visibility and in close combat. The primary weapon of the light infantry battalion is the M16. There are 65 M203 grenade launchers, 18 M60 machine guns, and 18 Dragons in the battalion. There are four TOWs, four 81-mm mortars, and six 60-mm mortars. The battalion has 27 HMMWVs and 15 motorcycles. There are no 2-1/2 ton or larger trucks in the battalion. There are 42 AN/PRC-77 radios, which are the primary means of communication within the battalion. There are no redundant radios. When attached, the light infantry battalion may come with a 105-mm howitzer battery from the infantry brigades direct support FA battalion. The differences among this battalion and air assault and airborne battalions are greatest in the organization of support and logistics. The battalion has no trucks larger than its 27 cargo high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs). There is no mess team in the battalion; Class I supply is prepared by brigade. There is only one mechanic in the entire battalion; repairs are conducted at brigade level. The battalion has only 18 long-range radios. The light infantry battalion has limited antiarmor capability: a HMMWV-mounted tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missile (TOW) platoon at battalion level and a Dragon (Javelin) section at company level.
And there ARE flame throwers. And shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons. And hand grenades.
Are you going to make a case for those weapons also? Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court will buy it? Or do you think the USSC will follow the Miller precedent and look at what the average soldier carries into combat?
M-9 Handgun
Did you know that in combat, it's mostly officers who carry handguns? Most enlisted don't.
So, I guess it did answer my question after all.
I would make the case for any weapon short of WMDs. But I won't make it with you, you can't even be reasonable enough with handguns.
Again, Miller didn't mention "average", the ruling used "ordinary", big difference. So if the USSC followed Miller then I should be able to own a shoulder fired anti-tank weapon. Those are quite ordinary to the military.
As pointed out medics and crew served weapons teams do. Pilots are issued hand guns. My link was to show what is standard infantry gear. How it is issued depends on the mission. To say that only officers are issued hand guns is disingenuous.
That is a rediculously perverse thinking.
The DC Circuit court in _Parker_ described cannons as WMDs.
The Brady/communitarian mindset irrationally insists that if the U.S. Supreme Court determines/'rules' handguns are unprotected arms, -- then we the people must obey that 'rule', and surrender our 'illegal arms' to any level of government that decides to prohibit them.
Bet me --- .
"-- whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, --"
Sure, walk around Chicago or New York with a gun and let's see if Barron v Baltimore is null and void.
You have a problem of using the word "is" when "should be" is the appropriate choice.
Here are the facts:
(1) Barron v Baltimore is not null and void.
(2) Marshall was not "trying to save the union" in Barron v Baltimore - maybe you should read up on the case.
(3) The 14th amendment does not overturn Barron v Baltimore but instead has given the SCOTUS another route to apply the Bill of Rights to the states
(4) The SCOTUS has had 175 years to overturn Barron v Baltimore and has repeatedly refused to do so, even after the passage of the 14th amendment (they chose incorporation instead via the 14th instead). If the Supremacy clause really means what you think it does then why hasn't any SCOTUS in 175 years realized that?
(5) The 2nd amendment currently does not apply to the states.
You can be as unhappy with those facts all you want, but you need to learn to accept reality before you can prepare yourself to try and change it.
One approach that I listed out earlier is that maybe the SCOTUS can be convinced that the Bill of Rights have always applied to the states and that Barron v Baltimore should be overturned. Just saying that it is overturned or 'null and void' doesn't cut it - we actually have to get the SCOTUS to do it.
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.