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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 721-734 next last
To: robertpaulsen
In other words, the federal government (Congress) may not write laws which infringe on the second amendment. States are free to do so, provided they don't violate their state constitution.

I see "Congress shall make no law" in the first amendment, but none of the rest of the Bill of Rights. So what makes you think that the rest don't. Of course these days the first amendment does apply to the states, but is poorly observed by Congress, which does make such laws "abridging the freedom of speech" and "of the press" as well, to keep themselves from being corrupted. It didn't work too well, but it did help ensure their individual re-elections.

61 posted on 03/20/2007 6:09:58 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
See my post 51 on the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

-PJ

62 posted on 03/20/2007 6:12:43 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

That's easy enough to understand.


63 posted on 03/20/2007 6:14:16 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

A serious question for you.
I don't understand what this phrase means:
"...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..."
Can you paraphrase that into today's english for me?


64 posted on 03/20/2007 6:19:06 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
How do you limit a right that shall not be infringed?

I would argue only when an individual abuses that right.

Meantime I am confused as to why the NRA opposed this suit?

65 posted on 03/20/2007 6:20:56 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye
In the 18th Century, with people walking around with swords on their belts, the right to carry weapons was not controversial.

I don't think swords were particularly concealed.

Certainly open carry was a common practice. While it would have been absurd to suggest that a gentleman with a sword in his belt be required to remove his belt and place it over his coat every time he went outside in cold weather, I don't know to what extent it was accepted for people to deliberately conceal weapons on their person.

66 posted on 03/20/2007 6:21:50 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The Supremacy Clause says the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. It does not say that everything in the U.S. Constitution applies to the states. That would be silly, given that parts of the constitution apply to the states and parts to the federal government.

The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government from day one, and that's how the Bill of Rights were enforced for 150 years.

67 posted on 03/20/2007 6:21:55 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Any natural right may be reasonably regulated by the government for the public good.

Or do you think that your individual rights should take precedent, and screw everyone else?

68 posted on 03/20/2007 6:26:38 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Gun laws passed by Congress are done so under the power of the Commerce Clause, regulating (prohibiting) the interstate commerce of certain guns

The second amendment, being an amendment, overrides the exercise of the power granted Congress in the main body, if that power is exercised in such a way as to "infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Prohibition certainly violates the right to keep arms, if one cannot acquire them, it's very difficult to keep them.

The same is true of Congress exercise of it's other powers in such a way as to violate the "restrictive clauses" that we call the Bill of Rights.

69 posted on 03/20/2007 6:26:57 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Zon
If each weapon accidentally fired what is the likely damage to neighbors? The gun is almost nil.

Not if it's .50 BMG, a .300 Win Mag, most any of the "Nitro" rounds, or really most any rifle round other than .22 rimfire, and even those are "dangerous to 1 mile" (or more).

False test. Arms are arms. You don't like it, or want "reasonable restrictions"? Fine amend the Constitution, don't ignore it's plain language.

70 posted on 03/20/2007 6:30:43 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Just as a collector's permit to own military type rifles (a.k.a. assault rifles) is an infringement. One deterent to a government trying to rule it people by military force is that the people are better armed than that military force. Note the words of one of our founders, Federalist Noah Webster:

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."


71 posted on 03/20/2007 6:30:57 PM PDT by Hambone02 (NEW-DUNC '08 !!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Just sayin
"Are you saying the framers didn't choose language carefully?"

They DID choose it carefully. Which makes me wonder why you're ignoring what they wrote.

Do you realize what the second amendment says? Do you think it says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? That's certainly all you're focused on and talking about.

Anyways, the courts have ruled that it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a state Militia from federal infringement.

72 posted on 03/20/2007 6:35:14 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"So what makes you think that the rest don't."

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is quite clear as to which government the Bill of Rights applies.

"Of course these days the first amendment does apply to the states, but is poorly observed by Congress"

And the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine what they'll do to the second. I can't believe you're actually anxious to give them that chance.

73 posted on 03/20/2007 6:40:29 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Any natural right may be reasonably regulated by the government for the public good.

Or do you think that your individual rights should take precedent, and screw everyone else?

I think that "communitarian" spin has been done to death since FDR, and we are the poorer for it.

74 posted on 03/20/2007 6:41:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"The second amendment, being an amendment, overrides the exercise of the power granted Congress in the main body, if that power is exercised in such a way as to "infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Prohibition certainly violates the right to keep arms, if one cannot acquire them, it's very difficult to keep them."

I agree. I am at a loss to explain why some of the federal laws (the NFA, the GCA, the AWB) were not challenged as violating the second amendment. With the exception of Miller, not one lawsuit.

75 posted on 03/20/2007 6:44:57 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

In the following statement, who is allowed to read books?

A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Is it just the well educated, or is it only citizens or is it all the people?



76 posted on 03/20/2007 6:47:45 PM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Any natural right may be reasonably regulated by the government for the public good.

Now there is a conservative core value! /Sarcasm
77 posted on 03/20/2007 6:48:03 PM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"I think that "communitarian" spin has been done to death since FDR, and we are the poorer for it."

You and your FDR. You're going on record to say that prior to FDR, natural rights were not reasonably restricted for the public good?

78 posted on 03/20/2007 6:48:37 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Anyways, the courts have ruled that it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a state Militia from federal infringement.

The USSC has said in Miller that the first part of the Second Amendment exists to clarify what is meant by the term "arms". It is not restricted to "hunting" or "sporting" weapons, but nor is it so broad as to include any and all artifacts which could conceivably by used somehow as weapons. After all, if everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon were protected, the government couldn't impose any tariffs or other restrictions on much of anything (an object could be used as a weapon, such restrictions would constitute "infringement").

The staffer who wrote the syllabus for Miller seems to have found that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but I see no reason why that person's opinion should bear any weight whatsoever.

79 posted on 03/20/2007 6:51:54 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You and your FDR. You're going on record to say that prior to FDR, natural rights were not reasonably restricted for the public good?

I'm going on record as saying that prior to FDR, "regulating commerce" wasn't a back door to the federal government assuming control of our everyday lives.

I distinctly remember you defending the AWB as within the federal government's power under the commerce clause, by virtue of the New Deal substantial effects doctrine.

80 posted on 03/20/2007 6:52:48 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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