Posted on 07/16/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2
Local government officials in Washington, D.C., decided on Monday to appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one's home.
Do you know of any current state constitutional provisions that do not protect an individual right? Certainly states limit the type of firearms protected, but among the states with state constitutional provisions I'm not aware of any state that does not protect an individual RKBA.
No, it was addressed to you specifically. You have a history on FR of derailing threads with that subject. Suffice to say that SCOTUS, in Miller, implied only militia-suitable arms are protected. Long arguments over whether sawed-offs meet that category have been had repeatedly without adequate conclusion; please, for purposes of this thread, accept that there is legitimate disagreement on the subject. If you seek resolution of that subject, please start another thread devoted to it.
In your opinion, who would present those facts? In other words, who would decide whether or not a particular weapon had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"?
Since each state has that reponsibility, wouldn't the decision be made by each state as to which weapons it trains with for its state Militia?
Good! I'm tired of this crap!
The state constitutions that have such amendments are usually far better worded than the second amendment. The reason why state constitutions protect the individual right is because they explicitly say so.
A typical provision (this is from Indiana) is the following: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
I don't. I'm perfectly content to leave it at "SCOTUS, in Miller, implied only militia-suitable arms are protected".
The poster to whom I was responding, however, equated Miller's short, sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun with the WWI Trench Gun. I thought that was disingenuous and needed addressing.
I understand your concern. BUT, if the USSC does something stupid, a lot of gun owners are going to ensure that they learn that yes, the 2nd is an individual/civil right. A decision that supports Fenty will most likely result in a war in this country. I think they know that and will do the right thing.
If they don’t, well, America started out because of a gun control fight. We won that fight and we’ll win this one.
Hopefully, the USSC will do the right thing and all this will remain historic presumption vs. a nasty reality.
Mike
While I let out a big whoop of delight when I read that DC decided to appeal, when I came back down off the ceiling I got to thinking it is going to be a safe bet that the US Supreme Court will deny certiorari in this case.
It would fit the pattern of their recent decisions on Second Amendment cases.
Following the Parker decision, the DC Circuit Court refused to re-hear the case en banc.
Here's the question..... do you think it is possible that the Circuit Court, by its refusal to re-hear en banc, was sending this message to gun-grabbers? : "Cut your losses and leave this decision alone. If this thing goes all the way to SCOTUS, you may not like the outcome."
Would be interested in other FReepers' opinions on this theory...
Parker is narrow enough that the U.S. Supreme Court can take it. It only involves a federal law covering an individual right to keep a registered, functional handgun at home for self defense.
If the U.S. Supreme Court limits their decision to that, there will be little nationwide effect no matter how they rule. The two big unknowns are 1) how will they rule and, 2) how broad the decision will be.
To the liberal the second is not about a guarantee of the first. Liberals don’t believe in the first (unless you agree with them), why would they think that the second is of value except as the means to resist them.
It’s beginning to look like this thread will get the record for most posts pulled by Moderator.
Two bad there are two-levels of browsing. The public one and then a view for registered and/or longtime members that can see the pulled comments.
A lot of unnecessary misery could have been avoided over the years had the Founding Fathers just omitted the first part of the 2nd Amendment, having it read simply,
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Anyone know where Doc Brown is? I need a time machine.
The pulled comments were inflammatory and off-topic. While I understand the curiosity and “I’m special, let me see them” feeling (which I often share), I requested they be yanked to preserve thread integrity.
The pulled threads contributed nothing to the topic. Trust me.
I was just parroting some smart guy in Field & Stream magazine, but I read him closely, and de nada.
The average guy needs to be able to respond when any given gun-grabber starts with the standard rap: “But do you really need a WASR 7.32X 39 . . ?” or
“As long as it’s not an `automatic’ (lieberal-speak for `semi-auto’) and used only for hunting, and it should resemble Elmer Fudd’s side-by-side shotgun, a 410, loaded with PowerSoft plastic pellets . . . blah blah blah”
I think we all agree, so once more—with feeling: the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
True. But is that what they meant?
From everything they wrote on the subject, yes - and emphatically yes.
The prefix was apparently added to note that the nation’s defense depends primarily on the ability to raise a militia from the population at large, and that could only be effectively done (especially on short notice) by having a population already self-armed and familiar therewith. This is a subset and benefit of having a generally armed (for all lawful & legitimate purposes) citizenry.
“True. But is that what they meant?”
People means the same thing as it does in the other amendments...individuals, not the state..no matter what “emanations from the penumbra” or other such crap the loony left tries to foist on us.
“True. But is that what they meant?”
People means the same thing as it does in the other amendments...individuals, not the state...no matter what “emanations from the penumbra” or other such crap the loony left tries to foist on us.
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.