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 ...
Only under your insane, and restrictive, definition of "the people" and "arms".
I wouldn't consider any to not have such uses, and that includes arms beyond just "firearms". However the anti arms rights crowd is always blathering about how this or that arm has no legitimate civilian purpose. (Too big, too small, too ugly). Thus the fact that the amendement provides no support for any such restriction is important.
What they were really doing, as explained in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, was preventing government from using any of the powers it was granted in the original body of the Constitution in ways not amicable to the rights of the people. That preamble is given below:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
So judges can rule that IT doesn't mean what it says either?
Look to the experience of Nebraska. In 1986 the people, by initiative, added a very clear RKBA amendment to their state's constitution. Yet not a single law has been invalidated based upon that amendment. Including laws which forbid carrying (bearing) weapons in various jurisdictions, as well less restrictive versions at the state level. And it's not because no cases came before the state Supreme Court.
The provision now reads: “All persons ... have certain ... rights, among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”
What was added was everything starting at "the right to keep" and through "lawful purposes".
They had, and still have, bans on carrying a handgun, even openly, without a license, except under certain conditions, few of which have anything to do with "security or defense of self, family, home, and others" or "lawful common defense". They require a state permit to even purchase a handgun. Its unlawful for someone under 18 to possess a handgun, unless they are in the military. (even a .22 used for plinking) except under direct adult supervision (remember it's a rural state). You have to be over 21 to obtain permission to carry a handgun concealed, although for most, if not all other purposes, one is an adult at 18. That's just state law, many cities prohibit concealed carry even with a state issued permit. Omaha in particular, but other cities as well, have other restriction on both keeping and bearing arms. (Cities are legally subdivisions of the state, as are counties.
So much for "clarifying amendments".
Not just "some", most. As you've pointed out, eligible voters were a minority, even among free white males. But all free white males, of the proper ages, were required to be in the militia, or more properly, they *were* the militia.
It's not an exception at all.
Who knows? Who cares? I find neither Bush or McCain inspirational.
Meaning that A) state laws must conform to the second amendment (as, for example, state laws must conform to the first amendment) and B) the second amendment means what 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court say it means. The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide, for all 50 states, the definition of "arms", the definition of "to keep" and the definition of "to bear".
You want that. You want those unelected and unaccountable yahoos, those who gave us abortion, sodomy, Kelo, nude dancing, freedom from religion, asset forfeiture, no-knock, flag burning, etc. to define our gun rights and make that definition applicable to all 50 states. This is a good thing, in your opinion.
You may get your wish.
MY definition?
The United State Supreme Court defined "the people" in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990). This case was referenced in US v Parker.
The United State Supreme Court defined "arms" in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This case was also referenced in US v Parker.
You'd better learn to love U.S. Supreme Court definitions, because after Heller they will be defining "arms", "to keep" and "to bear" for all 50 states.
I bet 5 liberals on that court will come up with some real doozies. If you think they contorted Kelo, or privacy (in a penumbra of an emanation), or the Ten Commandments/a Nativity scene/saying "God" at high school commencement as establishing religion, you 'ain't seen nuthin' yet'.
That's the kin of attitude that really helps the pro-gun movement. Thank you. Rocket launchers for home defense -- get yours today.
I did point out that eligible voters were a minority of the population, yes. Less than 20%. But I never said eligible voters were a minority among free white males.
If you wish to make that point, feel free to do so. But I would like some references.
You missed the word “misconstruction”, to wit: we didn’t mean for the feds to have a certain power, but someone managed to concoct it out of the Constitution’s wording anyway.
Nothing in the Constitution was intended to give the feds any power to disarm the people (or prohibit any inanimate objects), but eventually the political desire to do so deliberately misconstrued the “commerce clause”, along with the general power to legislate, into rationalizing that power into existence.
paulsen has NO military experience and considers his lack of experience irrelevant to forming a valid opinion on military matters.
Whatever he says about the military and weapons is made up.
Pretty much. Yeah. He’s little more than a punching bag...
I forget the exact court case, but the judge made a salient point. He said the natural state of commerce was free and unfettered. ANY regulation, therefore, was a restriction.
So the power to regulate is the power to restrict, even to the point of prohibition.
“shall not be infringed.”
Then why did Prohibition require a Constitutional amendment?
Who said it did? Seriously.
A constitutional amendment was desired, not required. Jefferson prohibited the sale of liquor to the Indians in 1802 without an amendment.
Yeah. Sure. More desirable to spend a year getting thirty-six state legislatures PLUS Congress to sign onto a bill that Congress alone could pass in a few minutes.
Sure, Jefferson et al passed Prohibition for Indians without a Constitutional amendment ... but then what court was going to find in favor of inebriation of an unwanted underclass?
Congress knew that general Prohibition would be challenged in court by people who could get a judge to acknowledge that Congress had no such power, ergo an Amendment was needed. ...much as discussion of passing NFA talked of outright prohibition, but a prohibitive tax was enacted instead because straight prohibition was not a power granted Congress.
They've begged that question continuously for years. And every single time their bluff has been called they've folded.
“An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding.”
Repealing National Prohibition
by David Kyvig
Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago
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.