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

realclearpolitics.com ^ | March 20, 2007 | Pierre Atlas

[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...

[robertpaulsen]

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

Do you see a connection there between library and books or not? The courts do.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think that "...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding..." simply means that a state cannot pass a law declaring that the Constitution doesn't apply in some situations. Similarly, one cannot amend the constitution to remove the supremacy of the Constitution. You can amend the rights that the Constitution lays out, but you cannot remove the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

-PJ

[Zon]

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

You assume an awful lot. An awful lot that you are wrong about. How does it feel and think of yourself as having assumed wrong. Especially since you probably don't know what you are wrong about.

You see, I knew when I was writing my post that you replied to that someone would respond similar to how you did. I'm truly sorry it was you. For I previously had higher respect for your reading comprehension.

BTW, I imagine that if a civilian had a nuclear weapon stored on their property that the community would get every business to ostracize the person, Including far away business like utility companies and mail order food sellers. Of course, friends of the person could supply him with food and necessities, that is, if they didn't mind running the risk of being ostracized too.

I think ostracism is far more effective. Most communities have zoning laws about where explosive magazines may and may not be located. For some reason I think that nuclear weapon storage zone is far, far away from any sizeable population -- any town that has local government.

[neverdem]

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

They initially were in it, but I have the impression they wanted to combine it with another case somehow because of the composition of SCOTUS at the time that it first went to the district court. They were afraid of losing, which is not unreasonable with some of SCOTUS' recent 5 - 4 rulings with the left winning.

They had a falling out with the lawyers of Parker et al. because of that. The NRA did file an amicus brief for this appeal to the Circuit Court. See page two of the decision.

Any corrections will be appreciated.

[Just sayin]

In order to form..... RP this is about people being familiar with guns and owning their own guns so when called, they are armed and prepared with basic knowledge about firearms used regularly at that given time.

I like what you did with this post, you jumpe right to 'well courts said'. NOtice you used past tense. In addition take a good look at your wording, chosen carefully eh?

You say 'as part of' and the framers sure didn't say that did they? Nope. The framers speak in the future and you read in the present. Therin lies a big part of why you have this so wrong. False assumption will do that every time RP.

[robertpaulsen]

"The USSC has said in Miller that the first part of the Second Amendment exists to clarify what is meant by the term "arms".

Well, the USSC certainly used the first part that way, much to the surprise of the District Court I'm guessing.

"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"

Yeah, it never got that far. The Miller court didn't say one way or the other.

[Just sayin]

Interesting question you posed there Betty Jane. I am smiling thinking about the possible responses that may be present as I continue to read this thread.

[Just sayin]

If all the books are required to be kept in the Library, how is the people's right to keep books not being infringed?

They are barred from keeping them at home or readin them in the park by your ( and courts) rulings right? See man. it just doesn't fit.

[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.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. It is a limiting-powers document, meaning that it lays out the limited powers granted to the federal government by the states and the people. The ninth and tenth amendments make it clear that the rights specifically laid out are not the total list of rights (too many to enumerate), and anything not mentioned specifically is reserved to the states, and to the people. That means that the States and the People own all rights, and the federal government only has the powers that the states and the people delegate to it. We can debate the power grabs that have occurred by the federal government some other time.

The Bill of Rights came about because the states were leary of ratifying the Constitution as it was, since it went into detail about the federal government, but said nothing at all about what was reserved to the states and the people. Therefore, the Bill of Rights was meant to be a counter to the powers of the federal government by attempting to list what rights were positively not ceded to it (retained by the states and the people).

So, your comment about the Bill of Rights applying only to the federal government is completely opposite to what the Bill of Rights actually is. It is a statement of what rights were to be kept by the people. It was only after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution that the states were willing to ratify it.

-PJ

[azhenfud]

"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'm thinking that notion, when applicable to circumstance, doesn't fit very well with a citizen's right to vote.

[Repeal The 17th]

thanks

[Political Junkie Too]

A well-stocked library, being necessary to the advancement of a modern state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Do you see a connection there between library and books or not?

You substituted "library" for "citizenry." Both the library and the books are inanimate objects in your example, with no rights whatsoever. In Betty's example, the people are being referred to.

Bad example.

-PJ

[bone52]

I have read your posts on the second amendment repeatedly. At some point in your posts, you normally say that you support the 2nd, but that in light of all of the precedent, it is unrealistic to hope that this amendments rights will ever be interpreted as individual.

Your posts today, however, do not support the 2nd amendment as written and intended, but rather a nonsensical perversion of the language. You are not arguing that precedent is lacking, but rather that the 2nd is not what it claims to be. But, it is hard to argue a lack of precedent when it is apparent that precedent is starting to accumulate.

None of your comments are supported by any reading of the plain language of the amendment. In spite of this, you seem content to throw light-weight jabs at posters as well as at well reasoned writing.

Read the decision and answer the arguments. Try it.

[Betty Jane]

Your use of the word library has no bearing. A place is not the same as a group of people, such as citizenry or militia. Now if the framers had used the word armory, your analogy would work.

So once again, in my example who can read books?

[tpaine]

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Communitarian spin is alive & well right here in River City, - bump.


The Communitarian Platform
Address:http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/platformtext.html


Much of what is being posted on this thread is pure communitarian agitprop.

[Zon]

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").

That's a very interesting observation. Aside from the obvious, steak knives and baseball bats, suddenly I realized the absurdity of limiting the primary thrust of the 2nd amendment to just the 2nd amendment only; regards the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear _______ (fill in blank with any object) shall not be infringed. 

A gun, sword, sling shot, cannon and cross bow are objects with varying degrees of technology. Objects that can be used to very destructive ends against other people and their property. This was Madison's concern that the Bill of Rights would be misconstrued to mean the government could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear any object except for guns. Hence the 9th and 10th Amendments. 

Madison was right. Not even the 2nd amendment has been honored. And the politicians and bureaucrats have infringed on the right to keep and bear a long list of objects. Pretty much whatever they can get away with. Their irrational, dishonest and criminal house of cards will come crashing down.

Here's how: 

Keep in mind, or, for your edification, technology advances exponentially. See the Law of Accelerating Returns, by Ray Kurzweil. For 2300 years government and religious leaders have adapted the technologies of their day, dogma and propaganda being mainstays. So have the freedom fighters used the technologies to fend off their advances. Because technology advances based on facts and the laws of nature/physics it can advance exponentially. Dogma and propaganda cannot advance much into and not beyond the knee curve of the technology curve. That's where the state of technology is at now. Irrationality, which dogma and propaganda are products of becomes increasingly random and disconnected from the facts and laws of physics.

Irrationality itself becomes decreasingly effective and ever easier to out compete. Until it has virtually no effect on the trajectory of civilization.

Civilization then will look back upon today as an anti-civilization. Where irrationality, human death and destruction had major influence on the trajectory of human lives and societies.

[Political Junkie Too]

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 we're into semantics here.

You said "natural right." The Founding Fathers spoke of natural rights ("unalienable Rights") "endowed by their Creator" to include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution is addressing civil rights ("in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity").

The things that we think of as being "regulated" in civil life are not rights laid out in the Constitution, if you think of regulations as restrictions such as licenses, permits, government controls, etc. If you go back to my post #23 and follow the link, you'll see that during Hamilton's time, the term "regulated" that precedes "militia" was referring to the concept of a trained military force, or more generally, training. You might have heard the term "Regulars" used in the context of soldiers, meaning that that they were trained in military discipline.

"Regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the same thing as the modern concept of regulations put in place by the federal government.

-PJ

[Repeal The 17th]

Whatever you're drinking,
I'll have a double.

[Dead Corpse]

Looks like every else has already neatly dismantled your anti-RKBA crap already.

Don't you ever get tired of being so incredibly wrong? Or are you just so full of yourself that you are completely incapable of seeing it?

Seek professional help...

[supercat]

Yeah, it never got that far. The Miller court didn't say one way or the other.

The appeals court that quashed the indictment against Miller and Layton did not feel any evidence needed to be examined to determine that Miller and Layton were innocent. If evidence had to be examined, that job would have been left to a trial court judge or jury.

The Supreme Court's decision didn't uphold a conviction; rather, it provided that the case must go forward to trial court where evidentiary questions could be resolved. As such, it would have been folly for the court to issue a decision with less than complete instructions. The entity responsible for deciding matters of fact would be a jury, and the only thing a jury could possibly do with information relevant to the defense is to acquit the defendant if they find that such information compels them to do so.

The clear implication, then, is that since the only matter the court mentioned as being in factual dispute was the military usefulness of a trenchgun, that would be the only matter a jury would have to decide in order to acquit.