Posted on 01/28/2008 8:39:17 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
The POTUS and his in-Justice Department has asked the SCOTUS to suspend the rights of Americans to Keep and Bear Arms.
One of the co-authors of this report, Saul Cornell, is a big anti-gunner. [url](http://volokh.com/posts/1173746455.shtml[/url]) Also note an advertisement on the webpage that this article comes from that endorses Obama. This report is not from a random group of historians that got together and objectively decided that the 2nd Amendment does not support the individual right to keep and bear arms, but rather anti-gunners getting together with an agenda.
The fact that the English Bill of Rights allowed for goverment regulation of firearms does not limit the American constitution from specifically forbading this. If the writers of the American Bill of Rights had wanted possible regulation, they would have said so. Instead, that used the blanket “shall not be infringed”.
From the aricle: “Nothing in this argument challenges the idea that eighteenth-century Americans had ready access to firearms, or that they valued the concept of a well-armed citizenry. Individuals were legally free to purchase and keep weapons as they could other property; but like other forms of property, the keeping of firearms was subject to extensive legal regulation.”
What regulation? That slaves couldn’t own guns? That is all I ever heard of.
“They rejected language that would have modified that authority, including a qualifying provision, proposed by the House of Representatives, defining the militia as “composed of the body of the people.” Acceptance of that definition would impair congressional authority to determine how extensive membership in the militia should be.”
While militia membership was an important reason to keep and bear arms, the lack of it does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms. The militia phrase of the 2nd Amendment does not limit the “shall not be infringed” phrase. The milita phrase is a declaration of intent, but is no restrictive in anyway.
Fore more info: [url]http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html[/url]
IBrp
...ok, now I can go read the article...
I made a few typos in my post above (I haven’t done much posting here—anyone know how to edit your post)
First link: http://volokh.com/posts/1173746455.shtml
Second link: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
Last sentence should read: The militia phrase is a declaration of general intent, but is not restrictive in any way.
The second qualification was a reference to the Game Law of 1671, which allowed lords of manors to appoint gamekeepers to “take and seize all such guns” used by “divers disorderly persons” to hunt and trap “game intended to be preserved” for the higher classes of English society. 6 English Historical Documents 466-467 (Andrew Browning, ed., 1988).
I wonder how the political elite of WA DC and other major cities feel about the idea that only people of wealth or social status deserve to be armed. I do think that this the the heart of the gun control debate. The political elite don't trust law-abiding citizens to bear arms, only their cronies. They remember the lessons of the French Revolution only too well.
LOL!
I guess Noah didn't get the same notification as the articles authors...
It's nice the Brits started moving toward indiviual rights in 1689, but 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' seems simplistically clear, no matter how hard the leftists in this administration attempt to muddy up the meaning.
Works for me...
Mark my words.
Past due time for their unConstitutional expansions of legislative power to be repealed en banc.
However, if the USSC noted that there is protection for the citizens under the Second Amendment, would it or would it not be a change in opinion?
Buy guns! The more we buy, the less likely they will try to come and get them. But if they do, the less likely they’ll be successful at it.
The SCOTUS splits in their opinion that the law is unconstitutional based on the 'shall not be infringed' portion, while the opposition bases it's view on the 'security of a free state' portion.
Now, if the pro side(Shall not be infringed) prevails, every law subject to the control of firearms in this country comes into question.
The captured bureaucracy of Washington would come apart at the seams.
If the Anti side(security of a free state) prevails, a whole host of new laws will be passed with even more stringent controls and soon a complete elimination of the basic right.
Now this decision will be determined by Kennedy, most likely, and the justices will not agree on an all or nothing decision either way. By narrowly focusing on the DC law and leaving the rest of the country in the same situation pertaining to GCA34, GCA68, etc, is what will happen. Which is what I am guessing will happen as I said in my earlier post.
Thoughts?
Miller was narrowed to the provisions of a sawed-off shotgun/militia argument and opened the door to regulation of machine guns, silencers, et al, wholly to control gangster activity when there was not enough law-enforcement to do the job.
Almost a certainty.
Otherwise, either way, things would get interesting around here real fast.
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.