Posted on 06/28/2010 8:21:01 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that gun possession is fundamental to American freedom, giving federal judges power to strike down state and local weapons laws for violating the Second Amendment.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that binds states.
"Self defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day," wrote Justice Samuel Alito. He was joined in reaching the result by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
An earlier 2008 holding by the Supreme Court, striking down a District of Columbia handgun ban, "unmistakably" required the court to likewise overturn laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that limited handgun possession, Justice Alito's opinion held.
Justice Thomas agreed with the majority on the result but wrote a concurrence offering different constitutional logic for viewing the right to bear arms as fundamental.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
VICTORY!
Of course Byrd has been busy assuming room temperature.
I thought I was dreaming, to read such things as what I have bolded: "The justices returned the case to the lower courts to decide whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the private possession of handguns, can be reconciled with the Second Amendment."
That statement is conditioned on militia needs and does not affirm an individual right. Nor has it stopped the state of Illinois from restricting individual ownership (one of two states not allowing concealed carry) even though its constitution explicitly defines militia as being constituted of all able-bodied adults.
That statement is conditioned on militia needs and does not affirm an individual right. Nor has it stopped the state of Illinois from restricting individual ownership (one of two states not allowing concealed carry) even though its constitution explicitly defines militia as being constituted of all able-bodied adults.
Apparently you are naive about certain areas and those who live there. Public official my butt sane people do not go there.
The second amendment was to guarantee that states would not be disarmed and would always have access to its own militia. Like the rest of the bill of rights it did not apply to state restrictions initially. But since the rest of the BoR was “incorporated” it is about time this one was.
This is a happy day.
He ded.
While its logic flows from a state (and by extension, the country) having a militia (all able bodied, says the opinion), the conclusion is that a state may NOT prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. Doing so would deprive the feds of the resource of a capable, armed populace. The conclusion isn't that the states can't disarm an organized militia - its that the states can't disarm the people.
My point was that the Courts have ignored this recitation in Presser, and instead have cited Presser for the proposition that states are free to prohibit the people from keeping and/or bearing arms. They ignore the passage I cited, and do so knowing that few people will read the case to see if it says what SCOTUS claims.
See too, in Heller, "Miller was convicted" as the lever to uphold prohibitions on civilian ownership of M-16 rifles. Utter corruption, and deserving of contempt.
Wasn’t the case you referenced the one involving militias formed by German socialists in the late 1800s.
Reading the US Constitution I don’t believe the “state” mentioned in the 2d was the federal government but the states in the Union.
I linked to the case, Presser v. Illinois. I don't know the history of the private militia that Presser formed, it might have been a German socialist thing. The laws in question had to do with public parading with arms (required a permit), and privately drilling/training as an army unit.
Herman Presser ... was indicted on September 24, 1879, in the criminal court of Cook county, Illinois, for a violation of the following sections of article 11 of the Military Code of that state, ... 'Sec. 5. It shall not be lawful for any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, which license may at any time be revoked ... Sec. 6. Whoever offends against the provisions of the preceding section, or belongs to, or parades with, any such unauthorized body of men with arms, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the sum of ten dollars, ($10,) or by imprisonment in the common jail for a term not exceeding six months, or both.'The indictment charged in substance that Presser, on September 24, 1897, in the county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, 'did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with, an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the state of Illinois, or the troops of the United States.'
The facts of the incident make this a parade permit case, and as far as I know, the 2nd amendment does not provide for a right to conduct a parade without permission. Presser argued that if the paraders were armed, that the 2nd amendment rendered the parade permit law unconstitutional.
As for the word "State" in the second amendment, I take it as a generic reference to a political/social entity where the people are self-governing, and have ultimate say-so over their government.
Indeed. Great to see a true and simple interpretation of the Constitution.
That’s the one. It was used to go after these militias.
Since the state’s righters were the ones the BoR was created to mollify I have no doubt that the word meant “state” which were the components of the Union. There was no application to the larger body since the states could and did violate all those rights mentioned under the BoR for decades after its writing. Besides the writers understood that militias were no match for professional armies so they were not depending upon them.
“The 2nd amendment had very little to do with self defense. The Founders believed it imperative that citizens be armed in order to defend their colonies/homes from invasion or Indian attack.”
Indian attacks weren’t about self defense?
Incorrect; the 2nd Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with self-defense.
Remember that the Constitution describes the relation of the Federal Government, State Government and People.
Now, holding that in mind, remember that the Declaration of Independence (basically a Work Order for a new Government) says that the purpose of government is to secure God given rights, “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Life is such a strong right that it is a valid defense/justification for homicide, even in our degraded court-systems. Think about that for a second, the violence of killing another human being *is* justifiable if it is to preserve your own life, or [even] that of someone else. This means that all inferior forms of violence (”non-lethal”) are ALSO justifiable if that right is threatened.
The Government, however, is not a single person and so cannot simply “be killed” in the defense of your life... in fact, government is much more likely to take your life [or livelihood, which is part of that ‘pursuit of happiness’] for disagreeing or opposing it. Yet this in direct contradiction to the proposed purpose of this government, in conjunction with the idea that governments derive their power from the Consent of the Governed, it was necessary to place the ultimate veto power into the hands of the Governed from which the government derives its power.
The government is like fire: controlled it is a good and useful thing that makes life better and more enjoyable; uncontrolled it is a destroyer and killer that cannot be quenched.
‘Who knows what the future holds”
b
See "Free State," Straight Outta Blackstone
Also, Madison originally drafted the amendment using the phrase, "a free country."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
-- There was no application to the larger body since the states could and did violate all those rights mentioned under the BoR for decades after its writing. --
I hold the opposite view in both regards: that the second amendment aims to curtail the operation of the federal government; and that the states could not and did not disarm the general populace. I've read references that purport to show how states prevented people from being armed, but the cites are to laws that regulate the discharge of weapons, not the ownership or carrying of them. But I'm open to learning more, and look forward to citations to "states ... did violate [RKBA]." My impression is that, other than the slave/freeman distinction, states did not prohibit keeping and/or bearing of arms until the 20th century.
-- Besides the writers understood that militias were no match for professional armies so they were not depending upon them. --
The drafters did not want the US to obtain or maintain a standing army, but agreed that the constitution provides for the feds to raise and support Armies.
*
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.