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 ...
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Don’t forget Ruby Ridge or Waco.
I think it will be interesting to watch the nation implode if the damn SC rules against the individual RKBA; states like California and Massachusetts (among others) would surely try to enact a ban/confiscation on handguns. I don’t think any government, state or federal, has the resources nor the manpower to collect guns from the near 150 million citizen who have them.
(1) is protected. (2) is not.
Historical writings on the subject by the guys who wrote the B of R suggests that arms in the hands of the citizenry are protected. I guess we’ll find out by midyear. God help the SOB who has to go around and collect those items should this court act in a collectively stupid manner.
“I won’t confuse what I want the outcome to be with what it may be. I’m on pins & needles and don’t have a prediction.”
Exactly where I am on this, too.
That line stuck out for me, too.
I thought the argument was very very clear and persuasive. In addition, the judge’s decision writeup was incredible, and if I’m not mistaken, the USSC actually has to soundly dispute and refute that in order to overturn the decision.
So you are postulating that the state can do what private individuals cannot do?
Like free America from the British and establish the United States of America?
Yeah, they are.
You need to go back to English Class, the “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state,” does not say that only if you are a member of a militia do you have an uninfringable individual right to keep and bear arms. It is simply saying that one reason, among many others, that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state.
Ravenstar
If they take their oath seriously they have to declare an individual right
If they think it needs to be redefined as per modern times then it should be done per the amendment process as laid out by the founders not by a SCOTUS convoluted ruling
Yea, you should. The BATF has prosecuted people for MALFUNCTIONING FAL’s and only backed off when a FAL expert disassembled the weapon under question ON CAMERA and showed them that the firing pin had actually broken.
I think I have a HTS set lying around that I will give you, if I can find them and if you want them. Is it inch or metric?
Freep mail me with your address and the details.
BTW, has the supply of 7.62 NATO gotten any better?
Ah. So there are other reasons. I'd guess self defense would be one. Hunting would be another.
If that's true, then why did the Founding Fathers only protect the right for "the people" -- adult, white, male citizens -- instead of "all persons" or even "all citizens"?
Why wasn't the right protected for teens and women? Surely they had a need to hunt and to defend themselves. What about foreign visitors?
PS I make custom high accuracy heavy barrels for a FAL. Let me know if you ever want one.
How, other than bureaucratic word parsing, do we know they didn't? Within the collect supporting writings of the Founders on the subject, is there any reference that expresses those limits on the right to keep and bear arms?
Bureaucratic word parsing? Is that what you think it is?
The Founders were quite specific when they wrote "the people". The people referred to a certain group of citizens. The DC Circuit Court in US v Parker cofirms this.
Pathetic.
Even for you.
Has a grown-up ever taken you to a range and taught you about firearms?
If you were ever lucky enough to procreate do you want your children to be unarmed?
Your posts suggest that you are one hell of a sheep.
I have lived 57 years, and quite a full life.
I do not care if it is enumerated in the BOR or not. I will always defend my life, and those of my family, and anyone else who is having thier lives threatened if I am in a position to offer resistance.
I will do so with what is available.
Those who wish to prevent me from doing so, are in for some dynamic changes to their breathing apparatus.
The first bunch anyway.
I am with you.
Do the supporting documents written by the Founders confirm this? Why rely on judicial opinions, written years later by jurists who weren't there? If you're going to look for writings to confirm that interpretation why not start with the source?
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.