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 ...
Everything from a bare fist to a nuclear submarine would have a “militia utility” would it not?
bump for a read.
How about a M14 belt fed conversion... *drool*...
I could argue that, but I would have a hard time arguing that a nuclear submarine was in common use in ordinary circumstances among the civilian population.
My fear is based on both parts of the Miller test being nearly self contradictory.
Well, maybe just a little one.
This whole process reminds me of a couple of drunks taking turns punching each other. A soon as one guy gets in a good blow we all cheer and clap. Then when the other guy retaliates we groan and bitch about his poor form and tactics. It’s fun but our feelings in the matter have little or nothing to do with who delivers the final knockout punch. Just like the Brady Bunch, we get to wait until the court makes a decision.
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.
If the Founders meant only to protect an armed populace, the preamble wasn't necessary. But since the Founders considered a well regulate Militia (rather than an armed populace) necessary to the security of a free state, they decided to be a little more specific.
BMFLR
Haven't read much history, eh? Prohibitions of religion, enforced..um..creative morality are not unusual, and suppression of knowledge is routinely practiced by most governments that ever existed. Of course, these governments always considered themselves "good". "One true religion" (with the head cleric firmly under the tyrant's thumb) was often enforced to the violent exclusion of other religions. "Right of the first night", public funding of depravity, and general rolling of heads for fun are often central to many despots' rule. "The Killing Fields" of Cambodia, along with many other pogroms against education, were the removal of the intellectuals (you wear glasses? you're a threat, off with your head) from a subjugated people.
Lame start, RP. Surely you can do better than that - or maybe you're on the ropes.
I'm looking for the "Second Amendment protects and individual Rights" ruling out of the SCOTUS. If we can't even get that, matters of "degree" aren't going to mean much.
Still trying to draw a distinction where none exists I see. Pathetic.
We’re just watching the countdown at this point. Yes, overall a good brief (NFA issues aside), but as you note there’s little we can do. DC’s brief was “3”, this brief is “2”, oral arguments are “1”, and final verdict is 0.
Then we know which box to turn to next.
I suggest you go read the brief’s bit on preambles BEFORE continuing your rantings here. It’s all been addressed. (I’ve read it - have you?)
We land jam side down... Things could get bad in a hurry.
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.So I've often heard argued. But I'd not seen cites to decisions predating the drafting of the 2nd demonstrating that this was the established understanding of statutory preambles at the time.
It's one thing to say "this is how a preamble should be interpreted." It's another to provide evidence that "this is how preambles were interpreted at the time the 2nd was written."
I've often seen the former. This brief provides the latter.
Idiotic supposition with a lamebrain conclusion.
Where's the "second of all?" Where's the answer to the proposition that a preamble cannot negate an operative provision of law? You didn't answer that one, did you? All that you did was sling some insults in the direction of the attorneys who wrote the brief (and who, by the way, were intellectually capable of getting a case heard by the Supreme Court, no mean feat in and of itself). No substantive answers from you, are there? I don't have to wonder why - I know...you can't answer that with a winning argument.
You might also take a look at Post #20, or more to the point, the brief itself. You might learn a thing or two. Or two hundred. Primary among which is that YOU ARE WRONG on this issue.
I disagree. Muskets were protected but not used for ordinary purposes.
In 1792 (under the Militia Act of 1792), Militia members had six months to obtain a musket for use in battle. Smooth bore muskets were inexpensive and suitable for volley fire, quick to load and not prone to fouling by black powder. They were, however, inaccurate.
If civilians possessed a weapon for ordinary purposes (hunting and defense) it would have been a rifle. They were expensive, slow to load, and had to be cleaned after a few rounds were fired. But because they were rifled, they were accurate.
“So what will happen if they do indeed decide that D.C.’s ban is legitimate, and that it is not an individual right, but a collective one, belonging to various organized entities, including state and federal?”
Ask the Brits. I’m quite sure they know!
It absolutely shreds every anti-gun argument that's ever been advanced.
L
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.