Posted on 02/04/2008 11:35:06 AM PST by ctdonath2
Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcguncase.com ...
But who will stand?
But that "when" is not part of the operative/enacting clause. There is no "when". There is no limiting phrase. It is a general right.
As one put it:
[G]eneral words in the enacting part, shall never be restrained by any words introducing that part; for it is no rule in the exposition of statutes to confine the general words of the enacting part to any particular words either introducing it, or to any such words even in the preamble itself.
Post #85 has a great deal more to say along those lines. Kindly address that material, instead of an empty "I disagree" with vapid/vague synopses.
I'm not sure about "a Militia" having rights. They could have written, "the right of the people as members of a Militia to keep and bear ..." but that would have been redundant.
Speaking of "should have written", it they meant an individual right independent of a Militia, they should have written the second amendment as, "The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress nor any state".
Lots of things they should have done, huh?
As Petitioners note, preambles are examined only “[i]f words happen to still be dubious.”Those were in #85 too. Is it giving you difficulty?...
Preambles are “properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacting part; for if they are clear and unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation, except in cases leading to an obvious absurdity, or to a direct overthrow of the intention expressed in the preamble.”
self ping
I commonly use my Thompson M1A1 in sub-gun matches, lots of other types of full auto weapons are present at these matches as well. I agree with your assessment, but NFA rules won’t be changed without a lot of kicking and screaming from the left...
“Interstate” is an adjective, not a subjunctive clause.
***First of all, where’s the moron who would seriously contend that religion, morality, or knowledge were unnecessary for good government?***
Who was the 42nd President?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if appears that the brief is very narrowly defined only as to the right to legally possess a firearm in the HOMENope. That is what the brief addresses, because that is the question at issue, and that's the question at issue because that's the way the case was intentionally structured.
They aren't asking SCOTUS to overturn the entire history of federal gun control legislation, they are asking for a ruling on a very narrow point - so as to make it as difficult as possible for SCOTUS to find anything other than the 2nd protects an individual right.
One step at a time...
Oh, I think what they did was quite enough.
The court here is caught on the horns of a delemma,
they can find to keep the assorted restrictive infringments
or they can find for the people. Supporting laws that clearly are in opposition to our constitution and bill of rights will find those laws ignored by the majority of the
populace who will find a way to restore those rights.
One way or another.
Supporting laws that clearly are in opposition to our constitution and bill of rights will find those laws ignored by the majority of the populace who will find a way to restore those rights.Exactly.
Case in point, when a pro-slavery SCOTUS "settled" the slavery issue, once and for all, back in Dred Scott v. Sanford.
bump
I contend it explains when the right is protected.
And so you ASSERT ad nausium. But you never back it up. It is merely your poinion. You could be a judge. Decide how you WANT the law to be and then twist words and history to fit your own wishes.
This case is gonna get interesting. Hope the justices check their bias at the door.
Regards, amigo!
Not wishing to split hairs. In my State, WA machine gun ownership is prohibited, in other states (say Idaho, for example),if I understand things correctly, machine gun ownership is taxed and the local LE has to sign for you having checked you out prior to the fully automatic weapon being transferred to you (at least according to a former co-worker who had a Thompson and a greasegun he bought many years ago, when he lived in Idaho.)
About two months ago, I was in a gun shop in Washington State and a lady had a WW1 French Chenault fully automatic rifle she inherited. It was fun to see all the gun shop folks say, but you can't own that! She just wanted to sell it. The gun store folks said they couldn't purchase it. I just wanted to take a close look at it.
Would I like to own a BAR or a belt fed something? Sure, but doubt I would ever buy one as it would be hard to fit in the two gun safes I currently have as they are full, and really don't have room for a really really, large safe.
The footnote you mention covers Miller's classification of 'militia weapon' as being one in where members of the disorganized militia "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common (military) use at the time". You know, how the Miller court looked at Miller's short-barreled shotgun.
The operative argument you're missing is:
"... In that respect, Miller may be in tension with itself. There is no justification to limit the Second Amendment’s protection to arms that have military utility."
But yes, Heller is making the case that backpack nuclear weapons are "of the type that serve no ordinary civilian function".
Can you direct me to the page that does this? I reached no such conclusion.
Another point to keep in mind is that every machinegun possessed by the military or your local SWAT team is part of the "common use" count, as far as I can see.
Just as it would not be reasonable to allow the government to cause an arm to become "uncommon" by prohibitions, similarly the government should not be able to cause an arm to become "uncommon" by monopolizing the functions which require the arm.
When the National Guard finally showed up at the Los Angeles riots, they were "commonly" armed with M16s, not the poor semi-automatic arms that the Korean storekeepers had been legally constrained to use.
When the SWAT team arrived at Columbine, they were armed with M16s, not the poor semi-automatic arms that a citizen attempting to rescue the students would have been legally constrained to use.
The increased manufacturing cost to create an M16 rather than a semi-automatic rifle of similar design is probably less than ONE DOLLAR. Every single AR-15 type semi-automatic rifle would be an M16 if not for the government prohibitions. If you don't want the M16 to fire in automatic, you just move the little selector to semi-automatic.
I will!
To the extent the Second Amendment’s preamble informs the nature of the operative rights-securing provision, the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” does not negate, but rather advances the individual character of the right to arms. The Militia is constitutionally defined as a preexisting entity, separate and apart from an army or navy that might be raised. U.S. CONST. amend. V (“. . . in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia”). “Congress was authorized both to raise and support a national army and also to organize ‘the Militia.’ ” Perpich v. Dep’t of Def., 496 U.S. 334, 340 (1990). “[T]he militia” are not “troops” or “standing armies,” but “civilians primarily”—“all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. . . .” Miller, 307 U.S. at 179. “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people. . . .” 3 Jonathan Elliot, DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS 425 (2d ed. 1836) (George Mason). That “the ‘militia’ is identical to ‘the people,’ ” Akhil Amar, THE BILL OF RIGHTS 51 (1998), is evident from Madison’s description of “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands,” who could resist an oppressive standing army. THE FEDERALIST NO. 46, 244 (James Madison) (Carey & McClellan eds., 1990). This militia reflected “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,” in contrast to “governments [that] are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Id.; BOSTON EVENING POST, Nov. 21, 1768, at 2, col. 3 (“The total number of the Militia, in the large province of New- England, is upwards of 150,000 men, who all have and can use arms. . . .”);
In order that the ordinary civilians constituting the Militia might function effectively, it was necessary that the people possess arms and be familiar with their use. After all, individuals called for militia duty were “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 179. Thus, the “militia system . . . implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” Id. at 179-80 (citation omitted); see also NEW YORK JOURNAL, May 11, 1775, at 1, cols. 2-3 (recommending “to the inhabitants of this country, capable of bearing arms, to provide themselves with arms and ammunition, to defend their country in case of any invasion”).That a militia be “well regulated” does not mean that it must necessarily be the subject of state control. With respect to troops, “regulated” is defined as “properly disciplined.”
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.