Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms

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...

In Twitchell v Com. of Pennsylvania, 74 U.S. 321 (1868), Mr. Twitchell claimed the lower court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of the case by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.

Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights and make it applicable to the states, you would think that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have known about this, either the plaintiff's lawyer or one of the nine eminent constitutional lawyers on the 1869 Supreme Court.

Read the 33rd Congress' Kansas-Nebraska Act. Pay attention to this part:

"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That no person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in said Territory; that the inhabitants of said Territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, of trial by jury, of proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted, No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property or demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared that no law ought ever to be made or be in force in said Territory that shall in any manner interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously proved. And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.

So people living in Territories had BoR protected Rights, but not those living in States?

LOL...

So people living in Territories had BoR protected Rights, but not those living in States?

Care to explain away the case that RobertPaulsen just cited?

You're really grasping at straws if you think that citing a federal statute has anything to do with if the constitution or the 14th amendment intended the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states.

You're really grasping at straws...

The Bill of Rights is what it is. A Declaration of Rights. Those Rights that are common to all US Citizens. I'm sorry if you don't approve, but I can't change your mind apparently. Nor can the direct quotes from the Constitution, Congress, and founders of the time.

If you'd rather take ONE judges ruling, that has since compounded the error, over the mountain of evidence against that view, then you have bigger problems than a mere internet discussion could possibly solve.

"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112

No problem - I figured you couldn't. You just hand wave away any information that you don't like.

Again, the bottom line is that Barron v Baltimore is still in play. If you want the 2nd amendment freedoms to apply to the state level then you are going to either have to get Barron overturned (very unlikely) or go around it.

You can post all of the Thomas Jefferson quotes you want, but they won't protect you, and neither will your guns, when masked, jack booted thugs (swat teams) come calling in the middle of the night if you break any state level gun laws.

You can say that Barron v Baltimore is in error and therefore personally void to you but unless the swat teams and the judicial system agree (they currently don't) you will either die or end up in jail if you break state level gun laws.

You just hand wave away any information that you don't like.

Isn't that what you are doing? I quote the Constitution, the legislation for ratifying the Amendments, and the guys that actually WROTE them. You counter with some judge trying to change the plain meaning of what I just copied.

You can post all of the Thomas Jefferson quotes you want, but they won't protect you, and neither will your guns, when masked, jack booted thugs (swat teams) come calling in the middle of the night if you break any state level gun laws.

Going off of your cheer-leading alone, I can only assume you'd approve of that. Gee... thanks. Love you too..

Going off of your cheer-leading alone, I can only assume you'd approve of that. Gee... thanks. Love you too..

I don't want you to get hurt and I'm afraid you guys are going to get yourself into something you wish you hadn't. Hopefully you guys stay out of cities and states that have strict gun laws.

Look, I hate those guys. I would love to see the BATF, the DEA, almost all local SWAT teams and pretty much 90% of law enforcement disbanded. I consider them to be thugs and bullies and practically evil. They are a waste of taxpayer funds and just a breeding pool of corruption. Unfortunately, social conservatives love police states - as long as they are anti-abortion.

I do however recognize that they do currently have authority, even if I believe they are out of control. To get things changed, I have to either work within the system. I can't just pretend that cops don't exist and if they harass me think that quotes from Thomas Jefferson will help.

Remember, the first step of solving a problem is identifying the problem. To gun rights advocates, Barron v Baltimore is the #1 problem. Pretending that it is null and void when the government that has far more guns than you asserts that it is valid, is just going to get you killed or in jail.

I quote the Constitution, the legislation for ratifying the Amendments, and the guys that actually WROTE them. You counter with some judge trying to change the plain meaning of what I just copied.

All moot points unless you can get in front of the SCOTUS and convince them. The SCOTUS has ruled and the federal and state governments have governed for over 200 years that the constitution does not apply bill of rights protections to the States.

You can browbeat freepers all you want with quote mining, but what good does that do, even if you convince them? You still must get the SCOTUS to agree and that has been my point all along.

Remember, the first step of solving a problem is identifying the problem.

Yes. We've done that. Judicial activism let the FedGov slip it's Constitutional leash. By getting back to First Principles , we may be able to turn the tide. Hence my refutation using original text rather than judicial "opinions".

If it comes down to it, then Rule .308 is in effect and may the Gods help us all.

Either way, I want the SCOTUS to rule on this in my life time. "If there be trouble, then let it be in my time that my children may know peace" kind of thing.

A large number of courts apparently can't understand English.

I would point to this example on that note. For many years this nation referred to border jumpers as 'illegal aliens'. More recently there has ben a shift, especially in media, calling them 'undocumented immigrants'. As time wears on the two words have been shortened to one word, 'immigrant'.

The final destination language has changed the true meaning substantially. The same thing is happening to the word 'terrorist', see Reuters or the AP for some of that action.

As you yourself noted previously, the framers were careful in their language. They did not say state where you now say they meant state. They did not say 'from the Federal Governmen' as you, and activist judges, portray they meant to say.

When read plainly and simply without ideological 'what did they "really" mean?', it is clear that no entity could infringe on the right of the people to keep and bare arms. Talk till you are blue RP, create any numbr of angles you can think of, all he court decisions you find. I will stick to plain language and simple meaning. Occum's razor and al that......

Well... it's not like we weren't warned.

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet..." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820.

A statement like that is exactly why I shudder anytime I hear Arlen Spectre talk. He is one that thinks the judiciary is above all else, not all that unlike some other folks along this thread.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the power of the Judiciary and accept it's need in our Republic. It seems I respect something others fail to respect and that would be the fact that the judiciary is subject to the very same checks and balances as the other branches of government.

I like to hope the judiciary, thru a coming SCOTUS ruling concerning the DC decision, will excercise a check upon itself and right the ship of wrongs that have gone on too long. My fingers are crossed.

I read a little ways back in this thread, I think it might even have been your post, where the some 22 thousand laws need to be wiped away with only laws pertaining to unlawful abuse of a weapon(s) remaining. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Then why in the world would you want five justices on one court defining the meaning of the second amendment? You are so g-d anxious to have the U.S. Supreme Court weigh in on this when the overwhelming majority of the lower federal courts (it's 9-2 in case you've forgotten) do not believe it to be an individual right.

What makes you think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to rule the way YOU want them to -- the same court, remember, that gave us CFR and Kelo?

22 thousand laws need to be wiped away

That's why SCOTUS will be in a bind. If they hear the DC case & rule against the plain meaning of the 2A, then they will have established that the Constitution means whatever one wants it to mean. Added to CFR/1A, it will become clear to even the most sanguine of individuals that our republic is slipping away.

However, if they rule in favor of the DC decision in support of the clear meaning of the 2A, then, as you say, 22k laws are wiped clean. How will the nation respond to such freedom? Instead of people trained and accustomed to their rights, we'll have a sudden freeing of restrictions.

How does this play with the growth & usurpation of government over the last 70 years? Would a militarily armed populace ever have allowed such a development to occur?

IOW, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2A, look out. Alternatively, if they rule against it, look out. This is a result of what happens when judicial activism retards the political debate.

My own take is that SCOTUS will ultimately rule in favor of the 2A, which then would launch an amendment process that would grant some level of regulation to the states. This is where the debate should have been all along, instead of taken away from us by the robed ones.

Like it or not, Barron v Baltimore is still in play when it comes to the 2nd. You can ignore it all you want, but our system of government says it is.
#671 -- JeffAtlanta

The supremacy clause says that the Constitution/Amendments and laws "made in pursuance thereof" are the supreme law of the land.

When have I or anyone else on this thread ever said that the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land? Never.

Specious. By denying that Amendments are "limits only on federal power", you deny they are part of our "Law of the Land".

The Bill of Rights were considered limits only on federal power.
--- maybe I'm just not wording something well here.

It's called cognitive dissonance. You simply cannot understand [for political reasons?], -- that your individual rights are protected by both your State constitution -- and the US Constitution.

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?

They can do what they wish to protect yours, within the limits of their powers, but they can't restrict my right. You obviously don't understand the cases you've quoted, which make it clear that you must look to the states for protection against being slaughtered. Even then, the states can only act within their own Constitutional (both Federal and State) limits.

Besides, baning guns is no assurance someone won't set off an ANFO bomb outside your house, or find some other ways to do you in. Gonna ban fertilizer and fuel oil? Banning guns won't even assure that you don't get shot, since only the law abiding and peaceable, highly unlikely to shoot you without just cause, obey gun laws anyway. Look at England for confirmation of that statement.

I already noted that Taney went too far in his decision. The part of the case that actually affected Dred Scott was constitutionally sound, however.

That's like saying a brownie is good enough because only a little dog feces was used to substitute for chocolate. Either a court decision is flawed, or it isn't. Even a little judicial activism poisons the well, and invites the public to resort to the Court to advance political agendas that should be the realm of the legislators.

Not sure 100% but that doesn't matter a lot, because, the 2nd protects an INDIVIDUAL right which is far broader than the "civic purpose" example given in the prefatory statement. (Which is in and part of Parker, by the way. Have you read it yet?) So at some point (the sooner the better) NFA '34 is gonna go bye bye for being the unconstitutional power grab that it was.

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.