Posted on 11/20/2007 10:17:40 AM PST by SmithL
The primary documents of Madison and his contemporaries are replete with references clearly indicating that the Second Amendment was considered by the Founders as an individual right, not simply a right to be exercised collectively that was contingent upon being called to service in the militia. Madison himself wrote in his personal notes that the amendments he had written “relate 1st to private rights.”[55] In referring to the need to pass a Bill of Rights to reduce Anti-Federalist concern over the magnitude and possible growth of federal power, James Madison stated that the “amendments may be employed to quiet the fears of many by supplying those further guards for private rights
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ... [a]nd further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves ....[118]
Your post is most excellent RicocheT. :-)
Well, since they have been banned for so long, there must be little or no crime involving handguns and this should be an easy decision. {/innocent_lib_mode_off}
Nope. They are just repeating the bizarre claim of the DC government and the dingbat dissenter on the appeals court that DC’s non-statehood has anything to do with this. The SC justices know the text of the Second Amendment and are asking a rhetorical question: “So where in the Second Amendment do you find support for your assertion that the right is dependent on participation in a STATE-regulated militia?” This will leave the DC attorneys sputtering incoherent nonsense as they try to persuade the justices that “well” actually means “state”.
I really don’t like the phrase “state-regulated” militia in the SCOTUS question.
I like this explanation of Militia, from THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BY THOMAS M. COOLEY, LL.D. (1898)
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tmc/pcl.htm
The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
To me this is a rock solid explanation of everything in the 2nd Amendment.
To be contrarian, NOTHING would more infuriate and consolidate the anti-Dem bloc for the 2008 elections than a ruling denying the private ownership of firearms.
I think the DC Mayor was going to go on FOX news. Could have been they were just reporting it on FOX though.
You left out the “we all agree...” part.
I won't bet against you.
I won't bet against you.
It is relevant because that is the cruxt of the entire debate. That IS the individual vs. collective disagreement. That's why it is a QUESTION. Because they haven't come up with the answer yet. You can't leave out the militia language from the question because that is the basis of the collective rights argument.
A good point.
You may all be right. I respect your opinions and hope that they are correct.
Buy y’all will surely forgive me if I stop by the sporting goods to do a little shopping on the way home.
The Supremes will duck the issue by ruling in favor of DC per article 1 sec 8: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District ...” while leaving the 2nd amendment intact.
We would all do well to upgrade our arsenals between now and May. Never hurts to send a message.
This is great news, as the current court should uphold and expand the current thinking on second amendment language.
“From my cold dead hands”, as set in stone by the 2nd amendment. After their hoped-for positive ruling the gangbangers will think twice about robbing grandma of her purse because they’ll be thinking about what she’s hiding in her shawl!
That’s my worry too.
DC is kind of like Guam/Virgin Islands. And kind of like a military base in a way.
And Congress is the base commander.
Can civilian workers on a military base carry their firearms around without permission from the base commander?
You have got to be kidding me. Most? More like hardly any. There are a lot fewer gun owners in this country than 40 years ago, but they are much more passionate about their rights than previously.
Involuntary disarmament programs will make Iwo Jima and Tarawa look like country walks in the park.
I dare say a lot of Christmas Lists are being updated, even as we speak...
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.