Posted on 01/13/2008 6:00:42 AM PST by Pharmboy
THE Supreme Court is poised to decide whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms or only a collective right tied to service in a state militia. While the arguments in the case will draw on history, policy and empirical data, the discussion must at least start with the text of the amendment.
snip...
How do the two clauses of the amendment interact? Does the first limit the second? Does it give a reason or the reason for the constitutional guarantee of a right to bear arms?
At a debate at Columbia Law School in November, Robert A. Levy, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case before the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, proposed a thought experiment. Suppose there were a constitutional amendment that said, “A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the self-governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Who would doubt that such an amendment protected a right to possess all books and to read books for purposes other than civic self-betterment?
His opponent, Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia, countered that the amendment might well not protect pornographic books.
snip...
Were it standing alone, many legal scholars agree, the second part of the amendment would be no harder to read and interpret than other provisions of the Bill of Rights. “There would still be much to thrash out,” Professor Van Alstyne wrote, but few would doubt that the freestanding clause guaranteed a fundamental right like free speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
And I would argue with Dorf that who is to say what is educational? Some porn could be...either it's a right and free or it's not, Prof. Dorf.
It’s inconceivable to me that the Supreme Court will rule against the only logical, historical and grammatical interpretation of the 2nd amendment possible:
An individual has an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
I am cautiously confident that the Supreme Court will side with the Constitution of the United States and affirm that individual right.
Where else in the bill of rights is it’s purpose to explicitly limit individual rights?
The bill of rights doesn’t grant us rights - it enumerates some of our rights. The 9th is the catch-all.
Either this will be a great victory for liberty, or we have the revolution Jefferson spoke of needing in every generation, or we are on the road to tyranny.
Pray for the former, but prepare for the latter.
You are right. Without the 2nd amendment, there can be no 1st amendment.
It’s a damn that the press has never been bright enough to realize this, or we would never have been in this position.
I stopped paying attention a long time ago. Did they determine what the meaning of the word “is” is?
The press doesn’t want free speech. The press is the LAST segment of our society that wants free speech.
They want the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, which means that liberals get to say everything and conservatives get to say nothing.
Opposition to the 2nd amendment goes right along with support for the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
How can one defend the security of a free state when the state controls the means with which to defend that freedom?
EXCELLENT point.
Never heard that argument before. Simple and brilliant. Thanks for your post.
I see. Give them the bullets first.
My thoughts: By extending the DC law to every state, I'd say it is unreasonable that an entire nations people be disarmed by the its' government.
Common defense (Militia) was quaranteed to every person. (See Wyoming Massacre where the general government said: "You're on your own".)
I’d be interested in seeing a list of all U.S. individuals who have not had the ‘right’ to ‘bear arms’ from the time of Madison to now. I would bet the list doesn’t have any names on it from the start of this country but has a lot of names on it now.
When I read the 2nd, two different entities rights ‘shall not be infringed’:
The right to a well regulated militia and the right for people to keep and bear arms. I was raised this way and I will not change because some liberal tells me I am wrong.
Ain’t it cute how the over-educated zealots try to get around the OBVIOUS intent of the 2nd?
They don’t want us to have guns, period.
They HAVE PLANS for us, and those plans DON’T involve us having the MEANS to fight back.
Pure and simple.
Build your cache soon. You’ll need it when the JBT arrives to disarm you in the interest of your Country.
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.