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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-342 next last
To: robertpaulsen
"Now, I'm kind of a reasonably intelligent guy. . .

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.

281 posted on 02/05/2008 7:06:52 PM PST by An Old Man (Socialism is a tool designed to "socialize" (i.e., confiscate, not create) wealth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom
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.

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.

282 posted on 02/05/2008 7:07:26 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Subsequent lower courts have addressed the "who" is protected.

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.

283 posted on 02/05/2008 7:26:03 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“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.


284 posted on 02/05/2008 7:37:16 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

“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.


285 posted on 02/05/2008 7:41:36 PM PST by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
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?

286 posted on 02/05/2008 8:36:49 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
I see no evidence that the Second Amendment permitted the government to disarm a veteran of the Revolutionary War, who due to battle wounds, was no longer capable of bearing arms in an organized Militia. "The people" mentioned in the Second Amendment were not limited to only those capable of contributing to the common defense.

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.

287 posted on 02/05/2008 10:46:54 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
"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.

288 posted on 02/06/2008 5:20:04 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"and "NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms"?"

The operative clause restricts the right, not the preamble. Get it? Two different things. There is no conflict.

289 posted on 02/06/2008 5:27:09 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"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."

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.

290 posted on 02/06/2008 5:35:03 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
"I see no evidence that the Second Amendment permitted the government to disarm a veteran of the Revolutionary War"

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?

291 posted on 02/06/2008 5:46:40 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"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.

292 posted on 02/06/2008 5:47:56 AM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: jdege
"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?

293 posted on 02/06/2008 6:01:37 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

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.


294 posted on 02/06/2008 6:34:47 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3.14159265358979323...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Where do you come up with these?

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.

295 posted on 02/06/2008 6:36:48 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3.14159265358979323...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

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”.


296 posted on 02/06/2008 6:40:21 AM PST by ctdonath2 (3.14159265358979323...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

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.


297 posted on 02/06/2008 6:56:42 AM 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 288 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"You. If a right is not protected, it tends to become prohibited."

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?

298 posted on 02/06/2008 7:13:33 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

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.


299 posted on 02/06/2008 7:20:24 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Well... no. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum.
300 posted on 02/06/2008 7:26:37 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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