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 ...
That is correct. Whenever you see the phrase "the people" it means the enfranchised body politic (ie., the voters).
In 1792 they were adult, white, male citizens. Today, "the people" also includes women and non-whites. It does not mean everyone or even every citizen.
I think RP has painted himself into a corner and knows it
The 14th signified the begining of some of that correction from the 2/5ths of a citizen for a slave, or free black. It also signified the equality of man and woman in the judicial process, BUT still denied her the right to choose her leaders. That was corrected in the 19th Amendment.
As you said in 1792, 'the people' signified white, free, males. The founders must have realized this would change over time. A lot of them could not and would not ever support slavery, and knew that time would bear that stance out. Same with women. Without that support, a lot of the founders would not have even attempted this great experiment. And that too had to weigh heavily on the mind of Madison as he sought a way to accomodate the culture of the day against what was to come later.
By using the term 'the people' he provided for inclusion of ALL citizens, man or woman in the rights of being Americans. Using the Amendment process was the means of making that foresight correctable.
Otherwise, why is the phrase 'the people' used, and not 'white, Anglo males'? It would define exactly who, and not allow for any other interpretation.
"Valid" in what sense?
I'm not sure the states even recognize them -- certainly not when it comes to arming them. Wasn't there a controversy involving the Michigan Militia or Montana Militia?
"Please back your extraordinary claim that all valid militias had state appointed officers"
The militia of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) is the same militia as that of the second amendment. The militia of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) specifies that officers are to be appointed by each state.
A perfect example of this is the 1st Volunteer US Cavalry.
Colonel Leonard Wood commanding. Wood had resigned his regular army commission to head this ad hoc unit with Teddy as Lt Colonel.
Milita or volunteer units at the outset of the War Between the States were all officered by elected or appointed men from the ranks. One of the reasons so many of the early battles were defeats for the Union is the lack of trained officers in command of what can really be considered irregulars.
The Dick Act corrected a lot of issues that dealt with commissioned, breveted, and volunteer officers into one heirarchy of officer corp.
I agree. The use of "the people" allows the phrase to be re-defined by the amendment process or by judicial interpretation. "All persons" or "all citizens" are pretty much absolute terms.
Still, if the amendment was to include self defense and hunting, why deny protection to "all citizens" and limit it to "the people"? Odd, don't you think?
Not really. Jay used 'the people' heavily in The Federalist Papers(#2) as did both Madison and Hamilton.
The term was a generalization of all those living within the colonies and bears out the inclusion in the BOR as a definition of all citizens.
The culture of the time was the man is in charge of all affairs of the family, and this evolved over time to the point of needing correction.
If the objective is to attribute to the phrase the closest possible meaning to the origial intent of the authors, the the interpretion should be based first on whatever available writings there are by the authors that expound or expand on thier opinions of who should be bearing arms. Absent that, you can go looking for analogs in other places in the Constitution or subsequent amendments for clarification, but don't go looking for implicit evidence first when there is explicit evidence available. IMHO.
“The Founders defined a well regulated Militia. A private militia does not qualify.” - RP
Post your source for this extraordinary claim - or withdraw it.
You are overlooking Title 10, chapter 13, sec. 311 of the current United Staes Code.
The idea of cognizant debate is lost on you. What is sad, is you do not understand that.
Door is to your left, thanks for playing.
I already backed up my claim that all valid militias had state appointed officers. If your private militia doesn't have state appointed officers, the second amendment doesn't protect it.
I'm not saying private militias don't exist or that they aren't allowed to exist. I'm simply saying the second amendment doesn't apply to them.
Since it is CLEAR, CRYSTAL CLEAR to you, please tell me the differences. I've been stating on this thread and others for the past year that "the people" were adult, white, male citizens. Your post confirms this, yet you say WE are degrading the thread?
Seems to me that "we" are the only ones on this thread who know WTF we're talking about.
You are overlooking the wording of the second amendment which refers to "a well regulated Militia", not an "unorganized militia".
I'm not denying the existence of the unorganized militia or saying they have no right to exist. They do. I'm simply saying the second amendment does not protect their right to keep and bear arms. Maybe their state does, I don't know.
Let us make this simple for you RP. All militia belong to the people however not all people belong to the militia. Similarly, All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic! Do you perceive what is meant in the previous statement!?! The protection is afforded to a group larger than that mentioned as one of the reasons for the Amendment! The people means all the people even if they are not members of the militia.
Ravenstar
“I already backed up my claim that all valid militias had state appointed officers. If your private militia doesn’t have state appointed officers, the second amendment doesn’t protect it.
I’m not saying private militias don’t exist or that they aren’t allowed to exist. I’m simply saying the second amendment doesn’t apply to them.” RP
Cite your source - The federalist papers would be acceptable.
So far, you appear alone in the claim that in order to be valid a militia must have state appointed officers.
“The Founders defined a well regulated Militia. A private militia does not qualify.” - RP
Post your source for this extraordinary claim - or withdraw it.
Thank you.
That’s what I meant.
That’s what it says.
Agreed.
Ravenstar
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.