Posted on 03/22/2008 12:02:27 AM PDT by neverdem
The U.S. Supreme Court should allow Dick Heller to keep a handgun in his home.
Dick Anthony Heller is a 66-year-old security guard who carries a handgun to protect the employees and property at the federal building where he works in Washington, D.C.
Because Heller also is a resident of the District of Columbia, he is prohibited from having a handgun in his home for self-protection.
Heller sued to overturn the city of Washingtons 1976 gun-control law that also requires all rifles or shotguns in D.C. homes to be disassembled or kept under trigger lock.
Heller sued claiming that the D.C. law violated his Second Amendment rights.
That amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of those 27 words, including how they are punctuated, has been argued, debated, cussed and discussed since the Bill of Rights was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.
Actually, the wording of the Second Amendment was controversial and often changed from the time that founding father and leading Federalist James Madison proposed this compromise provision years earlier.
Struck down city gun law
To the surprise of many observers, Heller won his lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when that court struck down the citys gun law. Previous decisions of a similar nature around the country had gone the other way.
Now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Heller has a constitutional right to keep a handgun in his home, located only a mile away from the court.
No one knows what the justices will rule when the decision is announced a few months from now, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who now is watched as the deciding swing vote on the divided court, appeared to side with Hellers argument in saying, In my view, theres a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.
Over the years, gun control advocates, gun owner groups and constitutional scholars have debated the meaning of militia, the People, keep and bear arms, bear arms, shall not be infringed and the significance of the two clauses along with the many changes the amendment went through before it was finally adopted.
During the arguments involving Hellers case, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. appeared to support Kennedys assertion that there is a general right for the people to own guns aside from the reference to a well-regulated militia.
Although Justice Clarence Thomas didnt tip his hand during the Heller arguments, he has previously indicated support for the idea that the Second Amendment protects individual rights to own guns.
Even if the court does decide that the amendment protects the individual rights of gun ownership, lawyers in support of the D.C. law still hope to prevail on the argument that the city has the right to ban uniquely dangerous weapons such as handguns that are used in much gun violence and criminal activity and can easily be taken into schools, buses and other public gathering places.
The 1934 National Firearms Act attempted to control such uniquely dangerous firearms as automatic-fire machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, silencers and other gadget-type firearms and accessories.
If the D.C. city council can decide its own definition of uniquely dangerous weapons, so could every other city and state, which potentially could restrict gun ownership to the point that all guns could be rendered useless for personal defense.
If you have time, when you hear somebody crawling in your your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire? Scalia asked the D.C. lawyers.
In essence, the D.C. law prevents citizens from using guns for self-defense. This is fine with many gun-control advocates.
Personally, I think Heller should be able to keep a handgun in his home for his protection.
Rowland Nethaways column appears Wednes- day and Friday. E-mail: RNethaway@wacotrib .com
WOMEN citizens too? They weren't part of the militia.
And what happened to the observation that only two of the original states explicitly included use of arms for self-defense? Did the Supreme Court overlook the fact that "the right of the people to bear arms" was only intended to arm the state organized militia?
By what mechanism would a BLACK citizen become part of a WHITE militia? As you have often pointed out, BLACK "persons" don't have a protected right to bear arms in a militia.
Isn't it about time that you explained the critical difference between "small children" and "infants" in your argument concerning how the incapacity of "some persons", (note: not PEOPLE) is relevant to the right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding, competent adults? First amendment examples would be fine also.
And isn't a "Jagoff" someone who masturbates? Are you implying that anybody that questions your thinking is only doing so for personal pleasure and not to get an answer from you? I don't think that is the case at all.
More than likely.
Ah. Who decides? You? God?
Me.
Sure you do.
It quite plainly addresses rights, giving as plain examples the exercise of first, second, and ninth amendment rights. OBVIOUSLY it has to do with, among other things, the 2ndA.
It also has to do with rights as a citizen of the USA. The rights, as given as examples, indicate no limitation to the state’s protection of rights. Contrary to your claim, the point of the quote is that one may enter _any_ state and exercise these rights. There is no indication whatsoever of the person exercising the rights “of his home state” or “of the state he is in”; the rights are simply presented independent of, and expected to be protected despite, protection (or lack thereof) of a given right in a given state. There is no state-limiting qualifier on those rights.
Learn to read.
Indeed he does. If someone unduly threatens his life, he has the right to stop him as you indicated.
To respond a bit differently:
The whole point of that quote is obviously that there are rights which a citizen may exercise REGARDLESS of which state he is in.
I am usually prepared.
I never have had to, although I came close on two occasions (thank goodness I'm big, ugly and fast).
As I have gotten older, I reconsidered that position, as I only had myself to protect with no spouse and young adult children.
Then God gave me grandchildren, so I am back in full protection mode.
God has so much invested in me that I owe it to Him to keep breathing, no matter what everyday life deals up.
I intend to do so, even if it comes to using deadly force against an assailant.
You do agree that your state may regulate the conditions under which you may use your weapon for self defense?
For a guy who does not know how many Circuit Courts exist in the United States you sure manage to make the simple complicated until it is confusing beyond comprehension.
Let me see if I can understand this latest iteration of all your previous iterations.
It is your contention prisoners can acquire, transport, possess and use weapons, up to and including firearms as long as they do not have THE RIGHT to acquire, transport, possess and use weapons and certainly not a God given right to said same.
Does that reflect whatever it is you try to assert about prisoners and weapons?
Because frankly I am not sure I can figure it out from the unending barrage of posts you make to every banglist thread on Free Republic.
Oh, I gave up on you understanding anything a long time ago.
I'm content simply to correct your ignorant and erroneous posts.
Excellent. Here is your opportunity to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
What have I said that is ignorant and erroneous?
Now, begone! You're a waste of my time.
The Penal Code from two states from opposite coasts:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+53.1-203
4. Make, procure, secrete or have in his possession a knife, instrument, tool or other thing NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OR SHERIFF which is capable of causing death or bodily injury;
http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9/9.94.040.html
(2) Every person confined in a county or local correctional institution who, WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORIZATION, while in the institution or while being conveyed to or from the institution, or while under the custody or supervision of institution officials, officers, or employees, or while on any premises subject to the control of the institution, knowingly possesses or has under his or her control any weapon, firearm, or any instrument that, if used, could produce serious bodily injury to the person of another.
Is that ignorant?
Is it a lie?
Is it erroneous?
No. Only I can make that decision.
So if you have a pit bull for self defense, YOU are the one who decides when to use the dog for self defense, not your state?
Then why did this guy get 8 years in prison? Are you saying he should have been found not guilty?
That would be a good start.
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.