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.
I said there were errors in Parker, and I got a lot of grief.
Well, there are errors in Parker. I documented them in this thread.
Own any cannon you like, I really don’t mind.
May I recomend the 10-round per minute version of the Crusader?
About $45 mil a copy,
But go for it.
You’re talking about a civil war between people who have guns and people who don’t? It might not be much of a war. But the winners aren’t going to have any support in the court of world opinion.
I know people who have their own cannon, now.
It said they can’t be required to supply their own, didn’t say they couldn’t supply their own.
Going way back in English common law, the requirements for people to arm themselves were set forth to keep the leadership from demanding that they spend themselves poor providing their own arms.
An average Joe wasn’t required to arm himself cap-a-pie and buy his own destrier. A longbow, a scramasax and a maul were sufficient.
Yet nobody minded if after a few successful fights, the yeoman up-armoured himself from the fruits of victory.
Those were the good old days.
scramasax ?
“Don’t think I can deny my Savior just to get a gun.”
+1
I don't see that the RKBA of "all individuals" was protected by the second amendment in 1792. The RKBA of those qualified to be in a Militia was, however.
"then the ability to raise a militia from a subset thereof is maximized."
Not when you're only accepting white male citizens, 18 to 45 years of age, who just so happened to be the group whose right was protected.
"and to the contrary wrote broadly of widespread and pervasive exercise of that right,"
Yes, but were they specifically referring to the second amendment when talking about the protection of that right? Or were they assuming each state would protect their right?
"... should be subject to federal infringement ... in the hopes that the denial of rights would be corrected later ..."
Are you implying that if a right is not protected it means you don't have the right or that the activity is illegal? It doesn't mean that at all. Some said at the time that the entire Bill of Rights was not necessary. How would you interpret that?
In 1792, the second amendment only protected a select group of individuals -- the enfranchised body politic -- to keep and bear arms as part of a state Militia from federal infringement. That was the original meaning of "the people". But I guess you're more of a "living constitution" kind of guy, huh?
If the Founders intended, as you say, to protect all individuals they would not have used the phrase "the people" -- they would have said "all persons" as they did elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
It means you're eligible for the Militia, not in it.
no doubt
I have no quarrel with the errors you found, but none seem pertinent to the holding, or provide a basis for reversal.
Freepmail me if you care to share you thoughts on the more critical error.
Seems like an awful concentration of influence, don’t you think?
And Those who go to Harvard, are not their because they are liberally or urbanly or northeasternly inclined, but because they are the most highly regarded candidates.
Put simplistically, the best go to Harvard, and the best go to SCOTUS (as a rough correlation.)
It's a provision protecting the right of the people to arm themselves for the collective defense of the state and themselves.
I understand your argument -- that given identical language, how can one protect an individual right and the other not. The answer is that neither protects the individual right. Then again, neither denies an individual right.
I guess what I should have said was that I'm not aware of any state that denies an individual RKBA. Certain weapons, yes. But not the right itself.
Six state constitutions say nothing about a RKBA. They're totally silent. Yet individuals in those state keep and bear arms, even concealed!
Puh-lease. This is like arguing with a six-year-old. It's not restricted before you abuse it because it's not possible in all cases to do so.
When it is possible (as with recorded speech or movies), you can bet your bippy that government censors do so if the private entities don't beat them to it.
That would be exactly wrong. See the Parker decision, pp 1-60, for a definition of militia.
I agree. The Founders used the phrase "the people" to refer to a particular group of individuals. When the Founders wished to refer to individuals, they would use the term "persons".
For example: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the Several States". In 1792, "the people" meant only white, male, citizen landowners, not "all individuals".
The fifth amendment's "No person shall be held to answer for ..." refers to individuals.
Define militia how you will. You can even say that in 1792 the militia was all individuals -- men, women, children and the elderly. Non-citizens, Indians, slaves, illegals, the insane, the infirm, and felons.
The second amendment, however, refers to a "well regulated" Militia. That is, a Militia consisting of those deemed eligible, organized, trained, and led by officers appointed by the state.
Now are we defining the militia here, or those whose RKBA is protected by the second amendment? I thought it was the latter.
All of your concerns are addressed in the Parker decision.
You need only read it.
Yes it did. But the Miller decision never said that individuals had the right to keep and bear these arms (they never denied it either). In fact, they were silent on this issue.
What the Miller court said (implied, really) was that the federal government could not infringe the right to keep and bear an instrument that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
Since each state has the burden of a Militia, it is each state that decides which weapons are suitable for its own state Militia and who will keep and bear them. The second amendment says that the federal government cannot interfere with this process.
I think what you mean to say is, "You need only read it, become convinced by the arguments contained therein, agree with it, and treat it as the Gospel definition of the second amendment."
I read it. Many times. It is one court's opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court will certainly take the DC Circuit Court's opinion into consideration along with all the other Circuit Court opinions made over the years in order to arrive at a decision.
Which is why I'm concerned.
To all...
Be very carefull what we are hoping for in this case...
Again, the U.S. Supreme Court is not a lock on this issue...Regardless of the “4 horsemen” on our side of the issue...
If the courts opinion that the 2nd Amendment is a “Fundamental Right”...Its all over...You’ll see bans, restrictions, infringements, confiscations from here to Christmas...And we’ll never get it back unless the ultimate trigger is pulled...
Now...After the scary side of this has sunk in...There is a bright side to this...
“IF” the 2nd Amendment is reaffirmed that it is an “individual” right...I believe it would be imperative that the court solidify it by an opinion that it has always been an “inalienable” right...There is no higher authority or justification...
That point needs to be re-iterated as the argument for the “individual right” gains momentum...
Hopefully it’ll go our way...But nothing is certain these days...
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.