Court agrees to consider D.C. gun ban (The court...will limit its ruling to one question!!!)

The Washington Times ^ | November 21, 2007 | Jim McElhatton

[wtc911]

Felons can't own them. You can't own machine guns. You can't own 'too many'.

____________________________________________

Felons can't vote either, their criminal actions cost them their basic rights.

You are flat wrong on the other two but I find that you frequently show your ignorance of our laws.

[LifeOrGoods?]

Felons can't own them.

Which begs the questions: are all felonies created equal. And do felons still have the right to defend themselves from a home invasion when they are allowed back into society?

[ScreamingFist]

This ruling is going to go the correct way, DC is going to lose. I have faith in our new Supreme, Roberts.

[El Gato]

Where did the "state" regulated come from????? This is worrisome.

The Constitution. Specifically Art I, Section 8:

Congress shall have the power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

"Disciplining" in this context means something more akin to Doctrine, common evolutions and maneuvers, etc. Not "punishing". The meaning is clearer in the portion on state's authority over the militia.

[bill1952]

No. - Most fully automatic weapons manufactured and registered Before May, 1986, may be owned and sold.

That does kind of suck.

[El Gato]

It's just a recognition of the organized militia. There's another kind.

Actually two other kinds. One is the unorganized militia mentioned in the militia act. But there is another "organized militia" that not all states have, but which is recognized in other parts of federal law. I know that California and Texas both have State Guards, which are organized, uniformed, but not usually armed. They supplement the National Guard, Air and Army, in their state missions, particularly disaster relief. They would also guard the Guard's armories, and other facilities as well, when the guard is called to federal service. Presumably they would then be armed. Such forces are in existence now, but were particularly active during WW-II, when they guarded dams, bridges and some railroad facilities.

[El Gato]

In the aftermath of a win for our side, D.C. will doubtless pass so many impediments to the ownership of a handgun that few will bother.

In which case they will be taken to the same courts again, and if the impediments truly are as you describe, they will lose again. The Courts are often Not Amused when folks try to "get around" their rulings. Not Amused at all.

[uncbob]

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the obvious racial aspect of this issue

The residents that are directly affected are of Clarence Thomas’ hue

Wonder if that will influence the court

[uncbob]

Where did the "state" regulated come from????? This is worrisome.

That is because the militias were State units NOT Federal

[El Gato]

Agree........loaded question indeed !....we’re screwed.

I tend to diagree. The grammar of the sentence assumes that "individuals", in this case those not affiliated with any state regulated militia, *have* Second Amendment rights. The very thing that DC argued against before the Court of Appeals.

violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia

Ask yourself who "Second Amendment rights" in that sentence are said to belong to (are "of"). The answer "individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia."

I don't who wrote that sentence, but at least the minimum number of Justices signed off on it, and I find it very promising indeed.

[El Gato]

Should I snicker yet? This court will decide Americans rights? Should I snicker again?

No they won't decide what the rights are, they will decide whether to enforce them or not.

At least we'll know for certain if the reset button will soon be required.

[R. Scott]

Using the Virginia Constitution as an example, the militia is every male citizen between 18 and 59. If the feds tighten up on the 2nd amendment, it can be amended to read “all citizens over 18.”

[R. Scott]

You can't own machine guns.

????? When did this happen? Did some politician sneak one by me?

[El Gato]

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

This is what the MSM and other anti RKBA types call the "insurrectionist theory". The fact that it's absolutely what the founders had in mind is the beside the point to them.

For just having the Cojones to bring this up, Thompson has just risen several levels in my estimation.

[R. Scott]

The militias familiar to the framers were privately equipped and trained. Neighbors who grabbed their guns and went out to meet the enemy.

[El Gato]

Ironically, what gun rights advocates want is a liberal interpretation of the 14th together with a conservative interpretation of the 2nd.

I just want the "original intent" of each to be enforced. The debates surrounding passage of the 14th amendment, and the freeman's bureau law that proceeded it, make it quite clear that the "privileges and immunities" of US Citizenship included the RKBA (or more properly the "immunity" from having it infringed.

[uncbob]

A legitimate question to be addressed

Why doesn’t the 2ND Amendment just state

“The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed “

Why was the Militia phrase inserted

[El Gato]

This tells you that it's over before it begins.

But maybe not the way you think. The sentence assumes that "individuals not affiliated..." Have Second Amendment rights. There are only two rights in the second amendment. One to keep arms, another to bear arms. If individuals are assumed, by the Supreme Court, to have those rights, it's all over but the shouting, gnashing of teeth and pulling out of hair by the anti arms rights folks.

It'll take a few years and lots of lawsuits and other court actions, but if that truly is the way the Court rules, gun control as we know it is dead, at least federal gun control. The states may take a bit longer, but then again, I live in Texas where the only state level gun control of any importance was the ban on carry of a handgun. Now we have CHLs for concealed carry on or about the person, and carry in vehicles, still concealed, pretty much anytime one is going somewhere, anywhere, in the vehicle.

[El Gato]

The court said yesterday it will limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals

IIRC, there were three sections of the DC laws specifically mentioned. Does anyone have a link or the text as to exactly what those laws cover?

[Squantos]

I see yer point.......waiting......nervous.

Hope ya had a peaceful thanksgiving day EG !

Stay safe....