Fighting For Our Handgun Ban (DC Thug Adrian Fenty Urges SCOTUS To Ignore Second Amendment Alert)

Washington Post ^ | 09/04/2007 | Adrian M, Fenty And Linda Singer

[goldstategop]

The central meaning of the Second Amendment has long been settled in the courts. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the provision -- which reads, "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" -- was in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one's own purposes.

For decades, the lower courts followed that pronouncement. They repeatedly rejected claims that the Second Amendment provides a defense against laws regulating gun possession and use that have no connection with service in a state militia. Although gun proponents vigorously insisted that the Second Amendment protects their right to possess and use guns for private purposes, the courts recognized that their view lacks support in its language and history.

On a related note, the courts also repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment is meant to constrain the federal government alone. Another longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Presser v. Illinois, establishes that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to state regulation of gun possession and use. The District should have authority just like that of the states, if for no other reason than to avoid the absurd result that the nation's capital alone would lack the ability to take the steps the local government believes are needed to keep its residents safe.

[goldstategop]

DC Thug Adrian Fenty wants to keep the residents of DC forcibly disarmed by urging the U.S Supreme Court to ignore the history and plain meaning of the Second Amendment. The DC City government has the right to prevent DC's inhabitants from effectively exercising their inherent right of self-defense of their own homes and persons. All in the name of a extreme handgun ban law the DC District Court, in Parker V Emerson found to be both irrational and unconstitutional. That's the decision DC Thug Fenty seeks to overturn, disregarding the the rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Second Amendment.

"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

[Hugin]

The usual pack of lies from the usual pack of liars.

[GeronL]

How much punishment did Sen Webb and his aide get?? /sarcasm

[GovernmentShrinker]

in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one's own purposes.

No, that's not what the SC said in US v. Miller, but I've heard just as wrong from supposedly pro-2A sources, so can't chalk it up to the WaPo's lefty lean.

[mkjessup]

The D.C. City Government is in as dire need of being replaced as was Saddam’s regime. The only thing missing are the official rape rooms, human shredding machines, and the ‘100 percent participation’ elections.

‘Operation D.C. Freedom’ - yesterday would not have been too soon.

[xzins]

The 2d amendment says to me that the people can’t have a citizen’s militia if they don’t personally own arms.

A citizen’s militia is not a federal or state organized standing army, or a police force, whether it meets daily or monthly.

[LibLieSlayer]

BS... The US CONSTITUTION Limits Government powers... It does NOT endow “rights” to the Fed, but ONLY to the People themselves... it limits Government powers! “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”!

LLS

[Condor51]

in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one's own purposes.

Adrian M, Fenty And Linda Singer are morons.

The article they wrote gives a hot link to Miller and not surprisingly, there's nothing in Miler about "not to provide to own weapons for one's own purpose".

In fact if we play the Liberal word twist and meaning game, Miller should be 'stary decide us'(sarc) for repealing every 'Assault Weapon' ban in the USA..

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Okay Libs, no sawed off shotguns. However to comply with Miller I'll be buying three fully auto 'machine guns'. Happy now?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

You are absolutely correct. Fenty totally screwed up Miller. Miller was about the legitimacy of owning a sawed off shotgun. The court reasoned that the second amendment applied to people owning weapons for use in a militia. Since no military used sawed off shotguns, hence a sawed off shotgun could be deemed illegal. However, it says nothing about whether the 2A applies to individuals. In fact, it infers that it does.

By using the Miller logic, we should all be allowed to own fully auto M-16s since this is a military weapon. I agree with that BTW...

[Travis McGee]

“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
~George Mason, 1788

“The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ~Samuel Adams, 1788

“The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed.”
~Patrick Henry

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.”
~Noah Webster, 1787

[skepsel]

H*ll with that, I want indirect fire weapons!

[Graymatter]

The amendment says the militia depends on the right to bear arms. It does not say the right depends on the militia.

[Ancesthntr]

Below are some better links regarding Miller and the RKBA than tyrant Fenty decided to provide - as usual, the libs only want you to have the information that they choose. The first one, in particular, has ALL of the legal motions filed in Miller, with commentary at the end.

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2005/03/17/as_he_told_the_millers_tale_problems_with_us_v_miller.html

http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm

1982 Senate Report on the RKBA:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

[Atlas Sneezed]

Fighting for Our Handgun Ban

By Adrian M. Fenty and Linda Singer
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; Page A17

As mayor and attorney general of the District of Columbia, we were deeply disappointed this year when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared that the District’s longstanding handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. Today we are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision in that case, which we think threatens public safety and is wrong on the law.

The central meaning of the Second Amendment has long been settled in the courts. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the provision — which reads, “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” — was in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose” is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one’s own purposes.

For decades, the lower courts followed that pronouncement. They repeatedly rejected claims that the Second Amendment provides a defense against laws regulating gun possession and use that have no connection with service in a state militia. Although gun proponents vigorously insisted that the Second Amendment protects their right to possess and use guns for private purposes, the courts recognized that their view lacks support in its language and history.

On a related note, the courts also repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment is meant to constrain the federal government alone. Another longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Presser v. Illinois, establishes that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to state regulation of gun possession and use. The District should have authority just like that of the states, if for no other reason than to avoid the absurd result that the nation’s capital alone would lack the ability to take the steps the local government believes are needed to keep its residents safe.

Against this backdrop, the D.C. Council decided in 1976 to ban almost all private possession of handguns, while allowing residents to possess properly registered rifles and shotguns. The council’s reasoning was as right then as it is now. Because handguns are involved in crimes, accidents and suicides far more often than other firearms, it makes perfect sense to ask that residents who want firearms at home choose something other than handguns. Although only a third of the nation’s firearms are handguns, these easily concealable weapons are used in far more killings, woundings and crimes than all other types of firearms combined. The more handguns a jurisdiction has, the more people die in homicides. Although handguns might still be trafficked into the District illegally from other jurisdictions, the last thing the District needs is even more handguns.

The handgun ban has saved countless lives, but this fundamental part of the District’s public safety laws will be no more if the Supreme Court does not review and overturn this year’s decision by the D.C. Circuit. Departing from the consensus of the courts, the court (in a 2 to 1 vote) decided that the Second Amendment is not about state militias after all but about personal gun rights. We think that ruling is extraordinary and wrong. Indeed, it is the first time a federal appellate court has used such a view of the Second Amendment to strike down any gun-control law.

The next step in the court’s analysis was also extraordinary and wrong. On the basis of Supreme Court precedent, even this court agreed that the Second Amendment, however one reads it, is not infringed on by “reasonable restrictions” on gun possession and use. The court ruled, though, that banning any “type” of weapon is never reasonable. The idea that the Constitution forbids a government to ban any type of weapon regardless of the reasons is unsupportable. It is plainly relevant that the District allows residents to possess other perfectly effective firearms, especially given how much more death and misery handguns have caused than those other firearms.

We hope the Supreme Court takes the case and upholds the District’s law, though we know that the outcome of any Supreme Court case is uncertain. We do not doubt that the District residents who are plaintiffs in the case brought this suit in good faith. But the District’s government must choose what is in the best interest of the District overall. The council long ago made its considered choice on how best to save lives here. We believe that choice was the right one and one the council had every right to make under the Constitution. So we will fight.

Adrian M. Fenty is mayor of the District of Columbia. Linda Singer is the District’s attorney general.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The court ruled, though, that banning any “type” of weapon is never reasonable. The idea that the Constitution forbids a government to ban any type of weapon regardless of the reasons is unsupportable. It is plainly relevant that the District allows residents to possess other perfectly effective firearms, especially given how much more death and misery handguns have caused than those other firearms.

---

Interesting argument.

This is the aspect of the ruling I most hope will be upheld (it will mean one can buy new machine guns again, instead of $10,000 old ones of increasingly obsolete technology.)

Perhaps SCOTUS will say the courts went too far saying that you can’t ban a whole class of guns, but that there is an individual right to be armed in a manner suited to militia defense (which I would argue means modern machine guns.)

[EdReform]

Bookmarking your links and adding one more:

CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

[absolootezer0]

Since no military used sawed off shotguns, hence a sawed off shotgun could be deemed illegal.

you forgot to mention that that argument was completely inaccurate to begin with, as the military had used SBS, both in preceding and succeeding wars.

[Ancesthntr]

you forgot to mention that that argument was completely inaccurate to begin with, as the military had used SBS, both in preceding and succeeding wars.

Correct. The operative quote used in Miller was:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. [Emphasis added]

There was no evidence presented. Miller died before the Supremes heard the case, and there was no attorney to present a brief or argue before the Court. The Court remanded the case back to the District Court to find facts, and again, no one represented the dead Miller. I wonder what result there'd have been if some experts had presented evidence about the extensive use of the SBS in WW1.

[ctdonath2]

Tangential correction: Miller (and his lawyer) simply didn’t show up to the SCOTUS hearing; he died 3 days later.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

molon labe!