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 Washington’s 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 city’s 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 Heller’s argument in saying, “In my view, there’s 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 Heller’s case, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. appeared to support Kennedy’s 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 didn’t 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 Nethaway’s column appears Wednes- day and Friday. E-mail: RNethaway@wacotrib .com
Boy, that would just ruin my whole day.
When are you going to stop hiding behind inconsistent and erroneous court decisions and tell us what YOU think?
If you don't think it is a "collective right", then who has standing? Individual members of a militia on their own account? Then Congress need only redefine the militia to eliminate all its members, and there is no right at all.
If you get words stuck in your mouth it is because you do a terrible job of explaining how your "ideas" make sense.
You have yet to explain how the inability of infants to speak influences the freedom of speech of competent, law-abiding adults. I put that burden on you because you claim that the incapacity of infants to exercise their own self-defense is relevant to the rights of competent law-abiding adults.
If the Miller Court had decided that only militia members had a protected right under the Second Amendment, then the arms possessed by Miller and Layton would not have been relevant. In suggesting otherwise, you join those same lower courts who invented the "collective rights" nonsense. It's not just that you note the lower court's ruling, you AGREE WITH THEM.
And a ban on the manufacture of books would not be a book ban? Why do you persist in a claim which is so demonstrably false? Permitting only a limited number of machineguns in civilian hands is a ban on having any number greater than that.
If the government reduced the number of machine guns allowed to ONE, would that be a ban?
They did that because they meant “everyone”. Overcoming strict nuances, prejudices, bigotry, etc. and resolving every conceivable legal conflict was not within their ability to get the document done in a timely manner.
As you have conceded repeatedly, “the people” has been clarified over time to include (practically speaking) “everyone” as we’ve managed to address & resolve such issues.
The point was that everyone who could serve would be able to ... which is, much to your dismay, different from obligating a subset to serve and allowing for prohibition of the rest from being able to.
The difficulties you are pointing out are ALL related to the fact that the Miller Court made an erroneous decision.
The solution is to dump that decision, not to hold future parties to the Court responsible for having to frame their arguments in terms of that decision.
Even justices on the Heller Court have suggested that Miller is deficient.
You are correct; if the Heller Court wants to outlaw machine guns from the Militia, they have a way to do it. They could also prohibit robertpaulsen from posting on FR.
But the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution to do neither.
I have asked you before to tell us what the Heller Court SHOULD DECIDE. I don't think you have a clue what they should decide because you have no coherent theory of human rights and Constitutional limits that would make sense given what the Second Amendment actually says.
Is there some chance that the Heller Court will rule that a state militia cannot arm itself as the state sees fit?
I have never seen a word of yours written to indicate that anything else is of concern to you.
What would prevent that today?
Kalifornia claims the power to confiscate unregistered "assault weapons". What prevents Congress TODAY from cancelling the registrations of all machine guns and oredering their surrender?
Absolutely. What prisoners? What felons? What small children? What foreign tourists? What etc? are not allowed to have guns? Under what circumstances? What case law or what statutue in what state?
As often as you have made these broad brush assertions I would have to believe you have complied a substantial archive or know of a website which you would triumphantly produce everytime this question arose.
Maybe you can put it on your Free Republic Homepage or links page.
So each individual militia member has a protected right to do whatever his state dictates? That's a pretty handy Amendment. Doesn't this mean that the state has the power to DISARM that same militia? Then, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" becomes "the right of the people to be disarmed by their state".
I think I read that a parent made application in Illinois for a Firearms Owner Identification for an infant. A gun had been gifted to the infant and the parent wished to obey the law by obtaining the proper paperwork for the infant prior to taking possession on the infants behalf.
I haven't heard how that has turned out.
Hey! Jagoff! Learn to read! I never said infants. You're changing my argument. Again!
See ya on the next thread. We're done on this one.
No, if they meant everyone, they would use the phrase "all persons".
For example, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads, "And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for".
Also, they couldn't possibly have meant everyone. Only "the people" voted. Not everyone voted.
Just one of many examples. And you will only discover how it turned out with diligent search unless it was refused it which case it will be trumpeted from the rooftops or it's issuance is discussed as a horrible "loophole" in the law.
Best regards,
Well, sorry, you're just gonna have to believe that they can't. I'm not going to waste my time with your foolishness.
The Founders only wanted to protect the right of voters to keep and bear arms to defend the country, yes.
There were non-voters in the Militia. Their arms weren't protected. That doesn't mean their arms were prohibited! Look at California -- millions of legal gun owners and concealed carry -- yet their state constitution doesn't protect a right to keep and bear arms.
Gee...I checked and you may be right.
You said "small children", not "infants".
Of course, in some circles, these two terms are almost synonymous. The difference must be key to your argument, no?
I described "infants" as begin those who, due to limited maturity, lack the capacity to exercise self defense in their own behalf. But of course, "small children" would be an entirely different matter. Because... well, because...
Well, there is no distinction with regard to the point either one of us was trying to make, is there?
Is there some capacity that "small children" have which makes them different from infants for the purposes of any limitations on the weapons they may have? Is there some capacity that "infants" have that "small children" lack?
You're really getting desperate. Are you now claiming that the restrictions applied to "small children" do not apply to infants? If you could make a coherent argument that makes sense, it might be possible to accurately paraphase your assertions. Evidently, I can't do so because there is some considerable difference between "small children" and "infants". Perhaps you could explain what the difference is and how that difference is relevant in this context.
I remember your comments on a previous Heller thread before the oral testimony of last week where you noted that handguns in the military were not common issue. Now after the oral arguments, we're seeing the SCOTUS focus on 'appropriate for militia use' as it applies to whether the firearm is protected and in 'common use', and you've taken that tack in your latest comments. I think it's important to note that you've since flipped your previous arguments upside down, but that's OK because none of us knew where SCOTUS' questioning would lead.
Aren't there more handguns in civilian hands than there are in military service? Also, there are more AR-15s lawfully in civilian possession than there are M16s in military service. Remember the AR-15 was the original design, if the 'heritage' issue is a legal foundation in SCOTUS' ruling.
If the lower court's holding prevails, wouldn't that prevent Congress from banning the AR-15?
Wow. That's really demented.
Show me ONE bit of the Founding Fathers' writings that clearly expresses that as a deliberate intent. Not just that they wanted voters to have their RKBA protected, but that non-voters would be deliberately excluded from such protection. (Don't point to the 2ndA, because that would be a circular argument. Point to prior writings of intent, discussion, concern, etc.)
The original AR15 was select-fire. The military adopted it, and dubbed it the M16. Later models of the AR15 were reduced to semi-auto-only.
As for the “lineal descendant” argument, look up the “Puckle Gun” which was invented in 1717.
It's referenced in the Parker decision.
"This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today. To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people” ...."
Shouldn't these people have the same protection for the 2nd Amendment that the other Amendments enjoy?
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.