Posted on 06/17/2008 12:52:10 PM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Court's upcoming decision in a Washington, D.C. handgun ban case could potentially nullify thousands of gun laws on the books. The case stems from a security guard who was denied a request to keep a firearm in his District residence for self-protection.
Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty recently said that the District's handgun ban "has saved many lives since 1976 and will continue to do so if allowed to remain in force." How does he measure that? The truth is that murder by handguns has gone up substantially in the District since the handgun ban was passed. I wonder how many honest people in the District were killed by thugs with guns because they were deprived of the ability to adequately defend themselves.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in its entirety: "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."
What is it about "shall not" the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand? For years they have argued that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership, when the comma between the words "free state" and "the right" clearly shows that the framers of the Constitution were masters of brevity and were addressing two different issues they obviously did not want tampered with. Some might not like what the amendment says, but it doesn't change the fact that it says it.
Let's suppose there is a constitutional amendment that reads: A well regulated free government health care system, being necessary to the health of the people, the right of women to have abortions on demand, shall not be infringed. Would the typical anti-gun advocate suddenly understand what "shall not" and "infringe" mean? Would conservative pro-gunners argue that abortions could be regulated, denied or restricted at every level of government?
In the worst case scenario for anti-gunners, the Supreme Court could negate all gun laws on the books because the Second Amendment is the gun law of the land. Keeping and bearing arms shall not be infringed. Gun laws infringe that right. Any law contrary to that is obviously unconstitutional. The amendment doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except if you are a juvenile or a mental patient or live in the District of Columbia. It doesn't restrict convicted criminals from keeping and bearing arms either.
The ramifications of this decision could be enormous. "Keeping" and "bearing" arms are two different issues. Keeping arms would allow citizens to maintain a firearm in their residence, tent, vehicle, boat or other conveyance. Bearing arms could be interpreted as legally carrying firearms in public. Concealed weapon permits would be a thing of the past because they are designed by state governments to infringe residents from bearing firearms.
Should mentally deranged people, organized street gang members or convicted felons be allowed to carry concealed firearms? I don't think so. But they may suddenly regain that right. The Supreme Court could place restrictions on firearm ownership the same way it restricts free speech by excluding libel, slander and yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one. But those restrictions came after decades of rulings handed down by the Court. It seems to me that the only constitutional way to restrict gun ownership is to have a separate amendment that specifies when a person loses his Second Amendment rights.
Even if all gun laws were declared unconstitutional, gun violence would probably not increase significantly because criminals have never followed gun laws, so why would they start now?
No matter where you stand on the issue, it will be exciting to see where the Justices stand on the literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Gregory D. Lee is a criminal justice consultant, author of three college textbooks and a syndicated columnist with North Star Writers Group. You can see his previous material here.
COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
The only people who have a problem with the wording of the 2A are the same idiots who somehow find the right to an abortion in the constitution.
They can’t see one and they just make up the other.
Remember “Algore” said it was a living breathing document, funny I thought it was encased in argon or some other type of inert gas...
I read the suit was brought by a Police Officer, who wanted to keep a gun in his home.
Think of the new definitions of the words "gay" and "marriage"
I have hosted it Here for anyone who would like to read it.
Isn’t it pretty clear where 8 of the justices stand (at least to an approximate degree), and that those 8 are split 4-4 on whether the right to bear arms belongs to the people or just to the state militia?
So it rests with Kennedy, and given the recent past, that’s cause for some worry.
I remain hopeful, the 2nd Amend. will be construed as an individual right. If it is so construed, however, I’ll wager that the “shall not be infringed” part will be given a loose meaning, as in “not OVERLY infringed” or “not TOTALLY infringed”.
bookmark for later
The suit was brought by a security officer charged with protecting the same hypocrite public officials who say he can’t protect himself at home.
It never did. Infringing on an American Citizen's Second Amendment right(s) due to a prior conviction is only a recent trend. And it did not stem from any part of the constitution. It came into being in the late sixties or early seventies as I recall. Something like that.
I agree completely. There's an awful lot of optimistic tea-reading going on, optimistic if you car about retaining your Constitutional rights, that is. This could go very badly.
>>>>>I downloaded and read the briefs that were presented by the attorneys for Heller
And it was reported that the attorney who brought and argued DoJ’s case resigned several weeks ago.
Scooter Libby can never own a gun again (legally) is that right? NO!!
If you do that then who will decide what is 'overly infringed'? State and local governments? The same people who wrote the law now before the court?
There isn’t a “new definition” -
in reality, there is only one definition,
and it has been destroyed.
They didn’t “redefine marriage” - they UNDEFINED it.
IMHO, if a citizen can’t be trusted with a firearm, he shouldn’t be free amongst us.
This part is brilliant:
The Copyright and Patent Clause preamble would arguably possess greater operative force than that of the Second Amendment, as it begins with the infinitive that introduces most powers of Congress. The power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, viewed with the same breadth as the power “[t]o regulate Commerce,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, could stand alone absent the text that follows. In contrast, the Second Amendment’s preamble merely declares a concept. Yet “Congress need not ‘require that each copyrighted work be shown to promote the useful arts.’ ” Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102, 112 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). And this Court does not question whether copyright and patent laws serve the preambular purpose of promoting progress, though some laws might fail such examination. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 (2003).
Decent, law-abiding citizens will always outnumber mentally deranged people, organized street gang members and convicted felons by at least 10 to 1. If everybody were armed, the numbers of these undesirable types will decrease even further.
They say that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. That is not the whole story. Evil can also triumph if good men are restricted to the point where they can do nothing.
Point well taken and a good one at that
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.