Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historic Supreme Court Brief Filed in Second Amendment Challenge to D.C. Gun Ban
dcguncase.com ^ | February 4th, 2008 | Alan Gura

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; heller; parker; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-342 next last
To: BykrBayb
African Americans in the Revolutionary War

ROFL indeed...

261 posted on 02/05/2008 1:04:28 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The important point is that they were expected to bring arms of common military use.

It doesn't say that. You made that up.

262 posted on 02/05/2008 1:05:31 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

It’s a red herring that is also irrelevant. You know this.


263 posted on 02/05/2008 1:06:47 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

It wasn’t a restriction, it was a neglect. What they wrote in no way was intended to facilitate prohibition. They wanted to make sure that those who were culturally expected to engage in combat could do so; this in no way was meant to be construed as a prohibition of others being similarly armed. Our recent corrections of the law, making it explicitly clear that everyone is included in “the people”, was done precisely because people like you were abusing linguistic limitations & conventions to deny individuals their natural rights. George Washington would have been at minimum puzzled by the notion that Martha could somehow be denied RKBA while he was away.


264 posted on 02/05/2008 1:08:17 PM PST by ctdonath2 (GWB wept for those who suffer. HRC wept for herself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Could you seriously look George Washington in the eye and tell him that the 2nd Amendment does not include Martha?"

Pfffft! He would tell ME that. Plus, he would tell me that she had no right to vote, to assemble, or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Women were not "full" citizens.

That said, I'm sure Mrs. Washington's individual RKBA was protected by her state constitution. As is yours today.

265 posted on 02/05/2008 1:08:21 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Women didn't have the right to vote. Correct. However, they still owned businesses, houses, fought in the militia, and yes... had the rest of the Rights generally afforded to everyone else.
266 posted on 02/05/2008 1:12:16 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I see. A mere oversight. They meant to write something else, but they were in a hurry - you know how these things happen.


267 posted on 02/05/2008 1:16:16 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"And that would be ... all of them are wildly outdated. The rest of us are in the 21st Century; come join us some time, would you?"

I went back to 1792 because we had a Militia back then and it's much easier to see the original meaning of the Founding Fathers.

But, as you say, that's all outdated and you believe we should go with a living constitution. You know, get with the times.

268 posted on 02/05/2008 1:31:01 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

I hope that you are correct.


269 posted on 02/05/2008 2:15:30 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They were expected to appear for service bearing muskets (as outlined in the Militia Act of 1792). Therefore, "common use" means "common military use" not "commonly used around the farm".

Fine. But irrelevant, as the rights protected by the 2nd extend beyond mere militia service. That military weapons are protected is absolutely fine by me - I can't wait to get a full auto M16 or BAR.

270 posted on 02/05/2008 2:24:38 PM PST by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation trying to stop Monica's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Whatever. The important point is that they were expected to bring arms of common military use.

Bull$hit. And after you ASSERT that 50 more times it will still be bull$hit.

271 posted on 02/05/2008 2:24:51 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But you said the "Founding Fathers meant no such restrictions". So I had to go back to that time. To prove you wrong.

No, you had to obfuscate to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

272 posted on 02/05/2008 2:53:05 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
No doubts or ambiguities arise from the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble. Any preamble-based interpretive rationale demanding an advanced degree in linguistics for its explication is especially suspect in this context.

Gad I love that kind of talk.

273 posted on 02/05/2008 4:11:02 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Bureaucracy is a parasite that preys on Free Thought and suffocates Free Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“At least in Massachusetts, we did. The Minute Men were definitely well regulated and the regular militia companies, who were not quite as well trained, were also pretty well regulated. Ask General Gage and Lt. Col Smith of His Majesty’s Army. If not for Gage sending up Lord Percy with a couple of cannon, while the colonial cannon had been dismounted and hidden so the Regulars could not confiscate them, and their carriages burned by the Regulars, Lt.Col. Smith’s force would have been all but wiped out. And that was with very little input from “higher command” on the colonial militia side. Even the “Old Men of Menotomy” were pretty well-regulated, in spite of being totally unorganzied, and over age. Even old “Mother Mother Batherick” proved to be pretty well-regulated.

Make no mistake, the first battle of the Revolution was fought between a “well-regulated” militia force and the British Regular Army, not between an armed mob and a much better trained and equipped Regular Army force.”

I will say it again. WE did not have a well regulated militia. We, as a nation, did not exist until after the Revolutionary war. All militia, both those who fought for England and those who fought against England belonged to the English.


274 posted on 02/05/2008 6:24:30 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
WE did not have a well regulated militia. We, as a nation, did not exist until after the Revolutionary war.

A lame difference without distinction (for purposes of this discussion). George Washington et al did not spring into existence on July 4, 1776 (or whenever the symbology changed to your satisfaction). If anything, it shows the reverse of what you attempt to: the people, acting _outside_ government prohibitions, formed a militia with militia-suitable arms - an act later formally protected by the 2nd Amendment.

275 posted on 02/05/2008 6:32:18 PM PST by ctdonath2 (GWB wept for those who suffer. HRC wept for herself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The second amendment reads, "a well regulated Militia" and your conclusion is that a well regulated Militia is but one of many reasons to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Where do you come up with that little ditty? The second amendment doesn't read, "A well regulated Militia, for example, being necessary to the ..."

Of course it reads that way... but that "preamble" does not grammatically modify the operative clause. In the commerce clause, the phrases "with foreign nations", "among the several States" and "with the Indian Tribes" do modify "commerce.

276 posted on 02/05/2008 6:36:37 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"The second amendment preamble is NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms. It's merely a clarification of when those arms are protected.
...
"The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens. It's a right protected for a certain group of individuals for a certain purpose. Hence, the preamble -- which doesn't limit the right, merely explains it."

You really don't see a conflict between "The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens." and "NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms"?

If so, you're farther gone than I thought.

277 posted on 02/05/2008 6:41:23 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Methinks this would be well within what the Founding Fathers had in mind,

Of course it would. The Boston Artillery Company, a militia company not controlled by the Crown, owned two of the cannon that the Regulars were trying to confiscate. They had control of two others that had been purchased for them by the Massachusetts General Court (the colonial (and now Commonwealth) legislature). Arguable they owned those as well.

Many private ship owners owned similar, or larger, both for protection against pirates, and for use when the ship was acting as a privateer. The Constitution acknowledges this when it grants Congress the power to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal. No point in authorizing someone to sink or capture the ships of your enemy, if they don't have armed ships with which to do it... and you couldn't just go buy a bunch of cannon and a ship on the spur of the moment, you had to own them before hand, or purchase them as a package from someone who did own them.

278 posted on 02/05/2008 6:49:28 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The preamble gives the reaason.

Yes it does, but it does not modify "right of the people". The people included more than just the militia, even then. You could be overage, or otherwise disqualified from militia service and still be a freeholder who could and did vote. But even those who could not vote, still had the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreassonable searches and seizures. They also had the other rights "retained by the people".

279 posted on 02/05/2008 6:56:28 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
C) The Militia Act of 1792 was very specific as to who qualified to be a Militia member. It says only adult, white, male citizens need apply.

But they also could not be too old. But those white adult males who were too old to be militia eligible were still were part of the group, "the people". Thus even then, the people and the militia were not the same. The right was also protected for those old dudes, even though they were not part of the federal militia. (I'm too old for the federal militia, but my state still says I'm a member of the militia of the state)

280 posted on 02/05/2008 7:03:17 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-342 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson