A Right of the People - The meaning of the Emerson decision.

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/2001 | Kopel & Reynolds

[Waco]

Probably the best and most accurate way to view the Constituton is that is ENTIRELY about individual rights. Everything in it tied back to individual rights. Indeed that is/was the number one purpose of writing it in the first place! Nothing could be more clear to me. That this has been "obscured" to some is due to efforts of leftists, who are enemies of it and are our enemies too.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

It was never obscure to me. A good summary of the Court's decision, tho.

[45Auto]

the Constituton is that is ENTIRELY about individual rights

Yes, that's pretty much what it is; the corollary view is that the Constitution is a document which severely LIMITS the authority of government, but not the liberty of the individual citizen. The so-called enigmatic 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[alex]

Collective right means simply no right. Soviet consitituion had a long laundry list of rights established, however, all of them were collective ones and hence citizens of FSU did not have any rights to speak about.

[glc1173@aol.com]

"Probably the best and most accurate way to view the Constituton is that is ENTIRELY about individual rights."

Indeed, read the 5th Circuit's opinion - and it put the 2nd Amendment on exactly the same level as all others: an individual right, but subject to "reasonable" limitations in the same way as courts construe "unreasonable search and seizure" in the 4th Amendment or "cruel and unusual" punishment in the 8th.

Scandals of antigun politicians - from Kalifornia to New York City!

[tpaine]

Many supporters of Second Amendment rights would have preferred that the Fifth Circuit adopt an even more protective view of Second Amendment rights, and void the federal statute because it did not explicitly require that the restraining order be based on findings of dangerousness. Instead, the Fifth Circuit ruled that, in Emerson's case, Texas law implicitly required such findings, and that was good enough. Yet because the poorly drafted federal statute was upheld, the result should be reassuring to the large majority of Americans who support both Second Amendment rights and some gun controls.
Gun-prohibition advocates have long warned that recognizing an individual Second Amendment right would prevent governments from disarming convicted violent felons, or would create a right to own nuclear weapons or bazookas. Most Second Amendment advocates, on the other hand, have always noted that — just as with other constitutional rights like free speech — the right to arms is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable regulation.

------------------------------------

Hey Tex! There are other people, like you, that worry about '2nd amendment' nukes.. - Check it out.

[tpaine]

Now, the question will be:

What will protect our rights from so called reasonable people urging 'reasonable limitations' on them?

We see one result now. -- I can't possess a semi-auto gun in California that looks like an 'assault weapon'.

[ctdonath2]

Sprinkled through the decision/analysis is that 2nd Amendment references to "arms" unquestionably permits items suitable for militia use. The anti's surely do NOT want to engage in that legal battle: the "stare desis" (sp?) they so adamantly tout will turn on them, noting that numerous prior courts at all levels have held that modern (of the day) militia arms are protected (i.e.: full-auto M16s nowdays) whereas underpowered concealable arms (ex.: derringers) are not, likely resulting in a ruling that says a local jurisdiction can ban pepper spray but not M16s. Also notable in prior decisions is that, early in USA legal history, concealment was considered bad - the anti's won't want a decision that forces all CCW to be open carry.

Brady & co. must be scared out of their minds.

[tpaine]

Unfortunatly, the brady bunch will just concentrate even more on 'reasonable limitations'.

[Texaggie79]

So what? So I agree with neo-cons on quite a few things. This is not a bad thing.

[tpaine]

Neo-cons agree with this? How weird:

"Gun-prohibition advocates have long warned that recognizing an individual Second Amendment right would prevent governments from disarming convicted violent felons, or would create a right to own nuclear weapons or bazookas."

[Texaggie79]

Some think that the Founders meant ANY type of weapon, and just did not realize the danger that future arms could pose. Others, including me, believe that the founders did not apply weapons beyond that of which a foot soldier can carry to the 2nd. I don't believe that the 2nd protected a right of an individual to own cannons back then.

[tpaine]

It is perfectly legal to own cannons, mortars, etc NOW. - I have a small battery of collectable minatures. Largest has an aprox 2" bore with an 18" long barrel, capable of shooting a mile or so if loaded properly.

Cannon shoots are held all over the US, much like gun shows. - Get a grip, these are not weapons of mass destruction.

[Texaggie79]

Get a grip, these are not weapons of mass destruction.

I didn't say they were. And I don't think antique cannons should be banned.

[tpaine]

Whatta sport. -- Yep, I bet you're one of them thar good guy gun grabbers, tex.

[Texaggie79]

If your gun is composed of a nuclear warhead sure.

[TheBlackFeather]

Others, including me, believe that the founders did not apply weapons beyond that of which a foot soldier can carry to the 2nd. I don't believe that the 2nd protected a right of an individual to own cannons back then.

Wrong...

[Texaggie79]

Proof........

[ctdonath2]

Others, including me, believe that the founders did not apply weapons beyond that of which a foot soldier can carry to the 2nd. I don't believe that the 2nd protected a right of an individual to own cannons back then.

Uh...dude...who do you think DID own the cannons and battleships back then? We barely had what could loosly be called a "government", much less a formal well-equipped army.

There is NOTHING to indicate the Founding Fathers did not include large-scale non-individual weapons in the 2nd Amendment. To the contrary, the one thing they all feared most was a government that could overpower the people, and many spoke strongly against standing armies in peacetime.

Before you say any more on the subject, I highly recommend you actually READ the ruling, which explains the 2nd Amendment _very_ clearly. It's at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm