Gun Control Goes To Court? (Los Angeles Times Anti-Gun Jeremiad) MEGA-BARF ALERT

Los Angeles Times ^ | 07/30/2007 | Los Angeles Times Editorial Board

[goldstategop]

The danger -- and one that extends beyond the sometimes mean streets of the nation's capital -- is that the high court will endorse not only the appeals court's decision but also its radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That would threaten even reasonable gun-control laws.

The 2nd Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The dominant -- though not unanimous -- interpretation is that the first clause limits the second, making the right to bear arms a collective one.

But in striking down the district's law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia embraced the Bush administration's view that the 2nd Amendment, like the 1st Amendment, refers to an individual right. "It seems passing strange," Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote, "that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as 'Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias' or 'states have a right to a well-regulated militia.' "

[goldstategop]

If there is no individual RKBA, why should there be individual rights to free speech, freedom of worship, protection from self-incrimination and the right to a trial by jury? The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board considers Parker to be a radical decision. Their liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment by reading it as a collective right renders the Second Amendment effectively meaningless. We can only hope in the face of their anti-gun jeremiad, that the U.S Supreme Court will interpret the Second Amendment the same way the rest of the Bill Of Rights have traditionally been read in our country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[RWR8189]

Lets just hope that Chief Justice Roberts can bring Kennedy into the fold on this decision.

[Enchante]

Oooh, UpChuck Schumer’s going to be so MAD if Roberts and Alito manage to lead a majority he doesn’t like in this case..........

[jimtorr]

"It seems passing strange," Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote, "that the able lawyers and statesmen in the First Congress would have expressed a sole concern for state militias with the language of the Second Amendment. Surely there was a more direct locution, such as 'Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias' or 'states have a right to a well-regulated militia.' "

IMHO, there is a simple answer. It was understood at the time, the 1780's, that a state militia consisted of every man capable of bearing arms. Thus, the right to bear arms is an individual right, and even a responsibility.

[kingu]

You can’t have a well regulated militia without a stock of people who have firearms and have knowledge of how to use them. Therefore the first part is the explanatory of why the amendment was written. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But does the LA Times call upon Diane Feinstein to turn in her firearm? Oh, no, high powered liberals of course have a right to keep and bear arms, it is just us unwashed masses who have to bow before those who are brighter to request the privilege. Sorry that nasty piece of paper screws up your idealist socialist state.

The most ironic thing about it all: Congress interprets ‘limited time’ to mean a lifetime plus 70 years, yet can’t read the damn sentence that spells out an absolute right.

[snowsislander]

Where do they find men so ignorant of history? I don't see how anyone who had studied even the least amount of American history could possibly have written such an "editorial."

[rhombus]

Thus, the right to bear arms is an individual right, and even a responsibility.

Bears repeating.

[rickdylan]

The danger -- and one that extends beyond the sometimes mean streets of the nation's capital -- is that the high court will endorse not only the appeals court's decision but also its radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That would threaten even reasonable gun-control laws.

There AREN'T any "reasonable gun control laws". That's an oxymoron. The only legitimate gun law in this land is the 2'nd ammendment.

[tcostell]

I understand why there is such cynicism about the SCOTUS hearing the DC gun ban case, but I think it's unfounded. I think we're going to win this one, and I think it only becomes more likely if there is politics involved in the decision.

Liberals now know that gun control is a political loser in this country, and all but the most dim witted have abandoned it as a talking point and a platform. And once we reassert our individual right to keep and bear, the rest of our rights will eventually follow because of the one absolute rule of politics.

You cannot enslave a people who have the means and will to resist you.

[School of Rational Thought]

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

Why interpret the first clause as a limiter as opposed to as an expander? Perhaps the correct interpretation means that the founders thought that as weaponary evolved, citizens in order to maintain at least parity, will need expanding access to those bazookas too.

This has at least as much merit as the kooks interpretation.

[SkyPilot]

Several years ago, G. Gordon Liddy shared how the 1968 Gun Control Act was written by Democrats and Liberals by taking passaged in whole cloth from the 1939 Waffengesetz (Weapons Law) in Nazi Germany.

He read clause by clause, and related how staffers told him in the late 1960's how Democrats actually marveled at the "beauty" of the 1938 legislation.

To Liberals, it is always "a stretch" and "outrageous" to believe that anything they would do could smack of evil or tyranny. A Liberal does not believe in the sin of man, and therefore cannot contemplate absolute good vs. evil.

[Carbonado]

“In theory, it’s desirable for the Supreme Court to resolve contradictions between lower courts about the meaning of the Constitution. In the real world — where gun violence mocks the “pursuit of happiness” guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence — clarity would come at the cost of public safety if the justices adopted Silberman’s unpersuasive view of the 2nd Amendment”

And there is the core of their, er, “argument”:

In the Leftist world where the constitution is a “Living document”, they are free to tinker endlessly with any laws or standards in the pursuit of their idea of a perfect world. I am always fascinated by the arrogant hubris of those same Leftists - The smartest people in the world so they tell themselves - So pedantically focused on a single desired outcome that they never take time to consider the larger context and effects of their ideas.

Thats why Brown vs Topeka quickly leads from the freedom of attending an integrated school to government mandated busing.

Thats why the “right” to an abortion quickly leads to the government paying for those abortions.

Thats why acts of perversion and self destruction are considered “free speech” but actual speech on important political issues is not.

[preacher]

“Thats why acts of perversion and self destruction are considered “free speech” but actual speech on important political issues is not.”

Live sex on stage in Oregon is ruled “protected free speech” but the McCain/Feingold CFR limiting political free speech is ruled constitutional.

[from occupied ga]

Where do they find men so ignorant of history?

Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston, Baltimore, Ithaca, Hartford, Portland, etc. To name some of the more egregious of the hundreds of anti-gun urban cesspools in the USA

[xzins]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated economy, being necessary to the economic security in a free state, the right of the people to keep and own their own business, shall not be infringed.

Obviously, the above means that only the government can own a business, and that individuals cannot own their own businesses.

[xzins]

That year, the court reinstated the prosecution of two men for carrying sawed-off shotguns across state lines, saying there was no evidence that such weapons had a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Actually, the judges were wrong. In urban and close fighting, there is great utility for a sawed off shotgun. At close range it has a broad sweep doing great damage.

[Tolsti]

That author is repulsed at the idea that the ‘people’ have any freedoms it seems. I’m sure, if it was up to them, all the BOR would be ‘collective’ and would basically be a slightly more free version of the USSR constitution(s).

[from occupied ga]

Liberals now know that gun control is a political loser in this country, and all but the most dim witted have abandoned it as a talking point and a platform

You couldn't be more wrong. The anti-gun forces in Kongress are as determined as ever to ram ever more restrictive gun control down our throats. You are probably not aware that the McCarthy gun ban passed the house by chicanery a couple of weeks ago and is now in the Senate Judiciary committee where is is expected to be acted on in less than a month.

Gun control is one of the absolute pillars of liberal belief. Liberals will no more give up gun control than they will give up breathing. It is not a rational position to them, but part of their secular religion, part of their jihad against individualism. You cannot reason with them on the subject. They have no pity when it come to your God given right to self defense. They never rest and they never quit. They never compromise - to them the word compromise means "take some now and the rest later"

There are only three possible outcomes between liberals and those of us who value freedom.

• We are completely disarmed and rendered helpless
• We are killed by their beloved police when we try to keep our guns
• We kill them

Those are the only possibile outcomes

[robertpaulsen]

"Surely there was a more direct locution, such as 'Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias' or 'states have a right to a well-regulated militia.' "

True.

On the other hand, if the Founders meant an individual right, surely there was a more direct locution, such as, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[from occupied ga]

would basically be a slightly more free version of the USSR constitution(s).

Zdravsvoits tovarsch - Considerably less free version.