Skip to comments.
Second wind for the Second (Amendment)
The Washington Times ^
| March 16, 2007
| Jacob Sullum
Posted on 03/16/2007 1:27:19 PM PDT by neverdem
Last week, when a federal appeals court ruled that the District of Columbia's gun ban violates the right to "keep and bear arms," The New York Times reported that the judges were "interpreting the Second Amendment broadly." If they had interpreted the amendment in the normal, mainstream way, according to the Times, they would have concluded it imposes no restrictions on gun control because it has nothing to do with individual rights.
This oddly bifurcated view of an enumerated constitutional right helps explain why the gun-control debate in this country is so acrimonious. When one side considers the Second Amendment a nullity and the other side thinks it counts for something, there is no safe middle ground.
If a court takes the position that Americans have a right to free speech, it is not interpreting the First Amendment broadly. If it says they have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is not interpreting the Fourth Amendment broadly. So why is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit "interpreting the Second Amendment broadly" when it says Americans have a right to keep and bear arms?
The court did not say Americans have a right to own anti-aircraft missiles or nuclear warheads. It did not even say they have a right to carry guns publicly (although that does seem to be implied by the "bear" part). It said they have a right to keep guns in their own homes for self-protection.
The D.C. law makes that impossible. It bans handguns not registered by 1976, except for those owned by retired police officers; prohibits carrying a handgun, even from one room to another, without a license that cannot be obtained; and requires that all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Read the
decision.
It was an unexpected joy to read!
1
posted on
03/16/2007 1:27:21 PM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
"interpreting the Second Amendment broadly." A liberal strict-constructionist interpretation? Wow, there's a Bizarro thought.
2
posted on
03/16/2007 1:29:53 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
To: neverdem
It was an unexpected joy to read! Agreed. I have read it 3 times today. A great "pick me up" when things look grim.
3
posted on
03/16/2007 1:35:13 PM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Rudy: When you absolutely,positively need a liberal for President.)
To: neverdem; All
4
posted on
03/16/2007 1:40:59 PM PDT
by
PsyOp
(Self-defense is a part of the law of natureā¦ - Barclay)
To: neverdem
Bet the ruling gets overturned decisively.
5
posted on
03/16/2007 1:46:02 PM PDT
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: AZRepublican
I bet the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.
6
posted on
03/16/2007 2:00:42 PM PDT
by
amchugh
To: amchugh
Well before it reaches the SCOTUS, I'd be watching for review before the entire DC circuit.
7
posted on
03/16/2007 2:04:06 PM PDT
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: AZRepublican
We'd be one step closer to the unmentionable should that happen.
To: AZRepublican
Bet the ruling gets overturned decisively.By whom and how much?
Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional
The majority in yesterdays decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read bear arms in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering. They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.
Read the decision. It's rather comprehensive and airtight, IMHO.
9
posted on
03/16/2007 2:15:12 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
This oddly bifurcated view of an enumerated constitutional right helps explain why the gun-control debate in this country is so acrimonious. When one side considers the Second Amendment a nullity and the other side thinks it counts for something, there is no safe middle ground. In the face of all the accusations and statements about "single-issue voters" I've read here over the last few months, I suspect this is precisely why NRA-types have been such vocal opponents of Rudy Giuliani. There is absolutely no point in compromising your views to support someone who gets such a basic, fundamental issue completely wrong.
10
posted on
03/16/2007 2:25:41 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
To: neverdem
...have read bear arms in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering. ...take the musket from the shoulders of our brave black soldiers, deny them the constitutional right to keep and bear arms...
11
posted on
03/16/2007 2:31:26 PM PDT
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: Alberta's Child
It's one of the reasons I have no enthusiasm for Rudy, the statist.
12
posted on
03/16/2007 2:35:37 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: AZRepublican
...take the musket from the shoulders of our brave black soldiers, deny them the constitutional right to keep and bear arms...You lost me. Could you explain that statement?
13
posted on
03/16/2007 2:37:42 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
If Rudycrat had appointed the judges they would have murdered the gun-owner.
14
posted on
03/16/2007 2:42:09 PM PDT
by
LibKill
(Rudy QUEER-SUCKING Ghouliani is loved by democrats and RINOS!)
To: neverdem
>You lost me. Could you explain that statement?
Sure, see here.
15
posted on
03/16/2007 2:45:29 PM PDT
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: neverdem
I find it odd that the idiot liberals who live in non fly over country think that their gun laws do anything to stop criminals who don't give a crap about restrictions on the 2nd - how dumb can you get (apparently, real freakin dumb - must be due to the degradation in the gene pool from all that free sex in the 60's).
Law biding citizens should be armed to the teeth to protect themselves while the gang bangers do us a public service by killing each other.
16
posted on
03/16/2007 2:49:21 PM PDT
by
Herakles
(Diversity is code word for anti-white racism)
To: Herakles
Search out HR1022...
Dems want all your guns, even grandpas shotgun and boltgun...
The next AWB has very little to do with the BS PC term "Assualt Weapons"
The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced In Congress;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced;
H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
McCarthys verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by assault weapons ban is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nations murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthys other purposes would make matters even worse.
H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have any characteristic that can function as a grip, and would also ban their main component, called the receiver.)
All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have any characteristic that can function as a grip.
Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 Garand.)
Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isnt sporting, even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned assault weapon with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers.
Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period,
H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 1022!
To: Herakles
"I find it odd that the idiot liberals who live in non fly over country think that their gun laws do anything to stop criminals who don't give a crap about restrictions on the 2nd..."
I don't think it's that as much as police departments love gun laws. They're great to create holding offenses for guys you want off the street and to tack a few extra years on a sentence.
18
posted on
03/16/2007 3:27:59 PM PDT
by
GAB-1955
(being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom of Heaven....)
To: AZRepublican
Thanks for the link. Do you think Ginsburg, Scalia and Souter will reverse their opinions from 1998?
19
posted on
03/16/2007 6:36:59 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
20
posted on
03/16/2007 6:38:52 PM PDT
by
VOA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson