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 ...
There are those that will argue with that statement. Some might even say that when one argues the same thing over and over expecting different results, they are insane.
No they did not. They belonged, sort of, to their town or township, as much as they belonged to anything except themselves. They went by the names of their town or township. The Acton Militia, the Concord Militia, the Lincoln Militia and of course the Lexington Militia. Not all had Minuteman companies, but most did. They were coordinated, loosely, by the Committees of Correspondence, which also did not belong the English.
Fortunately, or not as the case may be, the Supreme Court is not bound by lower court decisions. Even other lower courts are not bound by them, although they may be influenced in their own thinking by them. That's true even if there is no disagreement between the circuits.
“No they did not. They belonged, sort of, to their town or township, as much as they belonged to anything except themselves.”
And they and their towns/townships were subjects of the British crown. There was no US back then. Those who fought agains the British were either trained by the British, or self trained. They were not US trained either way.
“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.”
To a point I disagree. Please see my response # 284.
By the way, I am not arguing that people do not act outside of the government, I was responding to someone else who tried to say that a “well regulated militia” could not come from the common citizens. My arguement was that they could not have come from the US government during the revolutionary war because there was no US government at the time.
I would add that there is similarly no justification to limit the protection to arms that have "legitimate civilian uses".When I consider the list of what I consider "legitimate civilian uses", and try to envision a firearm that would not be appropriate for any of them, I come up empty.
What firearm would you consider to not have a legitimate civilian use?
Nor do I see any power consistent with the Second Amendment which would have permitted the government to deny General, later President, Washington, of any of the arms that he might ever have owned, despite his having attained an age greater than might have been defined for the Militia.
That is the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. I wasn't aware that it was already decided.
The operative clause restricts the right, not the preamble. Get it? Two different things. There is no conflict.
Conversely, there were some in the Militia who didn't qualify. Yes, there were exceptions. But I think it's unwise to define the right by the exceptions.
It's clear the second amendment was meant to protect the formation and existence of the state Militias. State constitutions took care of the rest.
TO DISARM?
Where do you come up with these? How can you possibly conclude that if a right is not protected it means the activity is illegal?
"But irrelevant, as the rights protected by the 2nd extend beyond mere militia service."
That is the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. I wasn't aware that it was already decided.
The Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed prior to the ratification of the Second Amendment, and will continue to exist after it's repeal.
The IRKBA will exist no matter what the Supreme Court rules.
The question is not whether the right exists, but whether D.C. will be allowed to continue to infringe upon it.
Well, the DC Circuit Court already said they couldn't. They said it was an individual right outside of a Militia. They also said it was a fundamental right. They also said that any infringement was subject to strict scutiny.
Not content with this major victory, most on this forum (you included?) wanted to take it before the U.S. Supreme Court for the ultimate showdown. To gain what, exactly?
Keeping in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court likes to keep their decisions as narrow as possible, what are you expecting them to add to the DC Circuit Court's generous decision?
Yup, that is the key thing about RP’s whole “they’re not ‘the people’” thing: nobody was _disarmed_. At best, he harps on proof that one group is protected, but can’t prove that a superset of that group wasn’t protected, and especially can’t show that anyone in the larger group but not the subset was ever legitimately disarmed. War vets obviously had the right when in combat, but nobody thought they lost that right when incapacitated, aged, or even trangendered. As one respondent amici brief details, such disarmament only started as a matter of outright hardcore racism, and was less a matter of being Constitutional as of corrupt judges sharing in such evils. Even Mr. Miller’s case was remanded for more fact-finding about the item, with no consideration given to a convicted criminal (felon even?) obviously acting outside the militia. Insofar as Martha Washington not being recognized as having RKBA, cuturally none expected her to be in combat nor have any other reason to actively demand it (I’m sure she was ready to deal with intruders nonetheless). There was no limitation of “the people”, for military service was broadly expected, and RKBA for other purposes was simply a given for individuals & applications outside that focus. The 2ndA protects “keeping”, which plainly includes non-active-service (lest what equpment to use when active service is suddenly needed?), and it’s just stupid to think that the Brown Bess or M4 by the fireplace, protected for national defense, could not be used by the lady of the home (or other capable inhabitant not expected to serve in national combat) to defend self, dependents, or property. Insofar as any denial of 2ndA RKBA protections were leglislated/adjudicated, the motivation outside any strict-scrutiny limits was mostly oppression - exactly what the right was enumerated for in the first place.
You. If a right is not protected, it tends to become prohibited. Not an absolute rule, but a strong tendancy of government. You're the one insisting the right is not protected; we are simply showing where it will end up.
...oh BTW: there are efforts to legally disarm veterans.
Yes, the other good point: government is not empowered to disarm anyone of anything. Recognizing that governments tend to want to do so, and will twist any granted powers to achieve it (now we have 922(*), with more on the horizon), the Founding Fathers made it clear “not only did we not give any government such a power, we now hereby explicitly forbid any attempt to act that way anyway”.
I was making an advance ruling on the Court’s behalf. The case made in Gura’s brief, on top of the DC Circuit Court’s very definitive majority opinion, make the ruling nearly inevitable. As is substantively correct.
Baloney. The government needs the power, they need a sufficient reason, and they need the support of the people.
"we are simply showing where it will end up."
Where it WILL end up? A little dramatic, are we?
The operative clause clearly states “shall not be infringed”. Yet, you find a ton of exceptions contained within. Again, your intellectual paucity rears its head.
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.