Posted on 03/17/2008 10:45:40 AM PDT by EdReform
The United States Supreme Court has decided only one significant case involving the Second Amendment, and that was almost 70 years ago. Next week, the Court will return to the issue when it hears arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. This is a test case brought by a D.C. special police officer who carries a gun while on duty. Under D.C.'s extremely restrictive gun control laws, he is forbidden to keep a handgun, or an operable rifle or shotgun, in his home.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The court concluded that handguns are lineal descendants of founding-era weapons and are still in common use today, so they may not be banned; the court also held that D.C.'s requirement that guns be stored in a mechanically disabled condition is unconstitutional because it prevents them from being used for self-defense.1 The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.
The parties presenting arguments next week offer three different interpretations of the meaning of the Second Amendment. D.C.'s argument--that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms only in service of a government-organized militia--does not stand up to historical analysis or textual scrutiny. Heller's position--that the Amendment establishes an individual right to keep ordinary weapons for self protection--is sound but not persuasively argued. And the Bush Administration's position--recognizing an individual right but leaving the government with some large and undefined power to curtail the right--is dangerously vague and legally weak.
Careful textual analysis, along with the relevant historical context, yields a remarkably clear, sensible, and workable answer to the question presented in this case. The Amendment protects an individual right to keep operable firearms for self-defense, which cannot be taken away by federal law...
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
“The second amendment says nothing about private purposes and makes no such distinction.”
I’m supposing you are citing, without chapter or verse, from Holmes’ seminal volume:
“Sheep-Dip, Cow-Flop, Bovine Excrement and Other Pure Poppy-Cock.
(More from the US Court of Appeals, cited above:)
“The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10
amendments to the constitution, commonly known as
the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any
novel principles of government, but simply to embody
certain guaranties and immunities which we had
inherited from our English ancestors, and which had,
from time immemorial, been subject to certain wellrecognized
exceptions, arising from the necessities of
the case. . . .
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press
(article 1) does not permit the publication of libels,
blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications
injurious to public morals or private reputation; the
right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is
not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of
concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall
be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a
second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to
agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the
defendant’s motion; nor does the provision of the same
article that no one shall be a witness against himself
impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against
him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by
statutory enactment.”
So the Bill of Rights all guarantee the rights of men, all that is but the 2nd Amendment; that’s your story and you’re sticking to it.
Good luck with that.
The USSC has issued rulings before that were narrowly aimed at just one individual so it is possible that they’ll rule that Heller has the right to keep and bear arms in DC while remaining silent on everyone else’s RKBA.
In the bigger picture you are right. I shudder to think what the long term outcome will be if your second outcome is chosen by the court. I have been so cynical for so long about the judiciary on the RKBA issue that its hard not to see this case coming down to liberal vs. conservative politics. In that case it all rests on just how intellectually honest the 9 justices are; who will uphold the Constitution even in light of their own political bias’. I don’t hold out much hope for Breyer and Stevens; some say that Ginsburg and Souter will go along with the majority opinion upholding the RKBA. It all comes down to just how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day. Its gonna be a real nail-biter.
Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today's infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self-defense or other lawful purposes.
HA! This guy obviously has not been to the rage and looked around. He DANG sure has not done that at a range here in Texas. The usual “array” found there on an ordinary weekend would make Sara and Diane faint on the spot.
Well I got a question for you: If the Court upholds the collective rights theory and says that only organized militias can keep and bear, how about the unorganized militia spoken of in the USC? And further, what would prevent a group of private citizens from forming a militia, and therfeore keep their RKBA?
Where does the second say “state militia”?
You are aware that private militias were common at the time, right.
Didn’t Thomas Jefferson have a private militia?
Which is why the Second Amendment stated ‘Arms’, not ‘Firearms’. Arms included cannon, and ships capable of carrying cannon and armed troops during those times.
Arms now would include a Boston Whaler with the option of attaching a machine gun, or two.
Do not feed the troll.
Though tumblindice, I think your suggested diet seems likely.
I’d choose the M4A1 because it’s shorter, and I think lighter.
I once had a dream of me trying to fire an M-16, and I couldn’t really do it because the stock was too long. I’m a small guy.
He is incorrect here. There literally hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of semi-automatic versions of this rifle in the hands of civilians. A huge number of the owners would LOVE to be able to legally convert them to fire three round bursts or full auto. There are also hundreds of thousands of M-14, and FN-FAL and AK-47 owners who would like to do the same.
It doesn't. The second amendment says, "a well regulated Militia".
A well regulated Militia was one that was organized, trained, disciplined, armed and accoutered with officers appointed by the state. What else can that be but a state Militia?
"You are aware that private militias were common at the time, right."
Be that as it may, their right to keep and bear arms would not have been protected by the second amenmdment.
Since the second amendment only protects a well regulated Militia, the unorganized militia and private militias would not be protected under the second amendment.
State Defense Forces and State Guards are protected -- the California State Military Reserve would fall under that.
Nonsense! The Amendment specifically and explicitly forbids the govm't from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are the same people mentioned in the other 10 Amendments. It does not forbid the govm't from infringing upon any state militia, or the Amendment would have explitly covered State miltias and excluded any mention of the people's right. THat's very clear in their writings regarding the matter.
Noah Webster:
""Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
The kingdom's of Europe didn't consist of states. Webster considered the right to keep and bear arms, the people's right.
Parick Henry:
""Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
The people's right, not any state's right.
Trench Coxe:
"... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
...and on, and on... The people's right!
I’ll take one of each... :)
The author also makes too much of the case that civilians today don't own arms as lethal as the military. The reason is simple; because the Supreme Court has refused to review the laws which prohibit the people from having such arms.
I, for one, started buying arms when I realized that the liberals had become hell-bent on disarming me. If the opportunity arises to buy even more lethal arms in the future, I will sell some of my retirement funds to do so.
What do you guys think about weapons as investments, based on the scotus case coming up?
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.