Posted on 11/20/2007 10:14:54 AM PST by ctdonath2
After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if it, in the end, decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?
The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home.
The Justices chose to write out for themselves the question(s) they will undertake to answer. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
As an individual right for purposes of protection of self, family and of one's property? Perhaps you can provide a quote to that effect.
They were discusing the right of "the people", "the whole people", or "the people at large" -- all these phrases are referring to a specific group of individuals acting in the collective exercise of a civic duty. Militia service.
Keep in mind the Founders said a well regulated Militia was necesary to the security of a free state, not a well armed populace.
"and most of us today considered to be a sacred right to keep and bear arms."
True. And that right is protected by our state constitution.
The poster found that exact quote and posted it in #120!
Who's your daddy?
If Scalia turns on us we're in trouble. It was Alito I had my doubts on from the conservative side.
I agree.
"The same can be said for gun ownership, it has several uses that can be both collective and individual."
True. But if we're discussing the second amendment, the majority of lower federal court rulings have interpreted that as a collective right -- an individual right used collectively in the exercise of a civic duty. Which is why I used voting as an example of a collective right.
You see? Nobody knows what they will do, how they will frame it, what indices they will use, what scrutiny, what restrictions.
It aught to be interesting, to say the least.
I agree.
Of course, the second amendment only protects "a well regulated Militia". If you think that "well regulated" also applies to the "unorganized" militia (or, as Mojave likes to refer to them - The Crips and The Bloods), then their right to militia-type weapons are also protected.
From The Embarrassing Second Amendment
According to Lawrence Tribe: He does note, how ever, that "the debates surrounding congressional approval of the second amendment do contain references to individual self-protection as well as to states' rights,"
And that right is protected by our state constitution.
And also by the federal Constitution. In fact state constitutions were primarily meant to reaffirm the US Constitution before the incorporation of the 14th Amendment became the law of the land.
Yea, and refuted your spin on it. Rightly so. I concurred in 128.
Who’s my daddy? He is a man, not a worm. Your point?
That's the problem. One thing leads to another. I mean, if the 2A protects "a gun" for self defense, then why limit it to handguns? Why only in the home and not on the street?
Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court wants to open that Pandora' box?
Agreed, we could be in for a real ride.
Um, no dunderhead, "a well regulated Militia" is the reason the right of "the people" shall not be infringed. And, as others have pointed out to you, well regulated does not mean under the thumb of government.
If you think that "well regulated" also applies to the "unorganized" militia (or, as Mojave likes to refer to them - The Crips and The Bloods), then their right to militia-type weapons are also protected.
Wow, freedom can be scary sometimes, can't it? If those people violate the law, there are remedies. I don't care if they use a gun, knife or a gallon of gas.
Gun laws are a prior restraint against me that do nothing to deter criminals. If you doubt it just take a nice evening stroll through democrat strongholds like LA and Detroit where they agree with you and run the city accordingly.
BTW, I don't give a rats ass what Roscoe thinks.
The same can be said of illegal immigration, what is there really to debate? The problem is many perverted thinkers are in positions of very high power and so everyone who sees it for what it is are continuously forced to shoot down their ludicrous arguments despite the fact they're so obviously wrong.
The ones that I've seen refer to, "the right to bear arms for the protection of self and country" or some variation of that. But in the 18th century, to "bear arms" meant to carry them into battle -- so to protect self was to protect self in battle.
Really, you have a link for that? The word “bear” in the 18th century to my knowledge meant to carry or hold and not much different from today’s application of the word.
Unbelievable.....
Large print, for the thinking impaired:
Amendment II
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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
The Second Amendment is short and pretty clear cut..It has two parts: The right of a State to have a regulated Militia, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..
So what part of ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms... [and]....shall not be infringed.’ do people not understand ??.....
Lib argument: bbbbut...bbbbut.....and that’s about all they should be able to say about that Amendment...
In any honest analysis of the Second Amendment, whether literally and textually, historically, or grammatically, it is impossible to conclude that it intends anything other than to guarantee the right of free individuals to keep and bear arms.
Unfortunately, those who champion the collectivist arguments are not concerned with honesty, nor with the rights and freedom of their fellow citizens. Their contorted and contrived arguments are merely sophistries intended to advance the power of the State at the expense of the freedom of their fellow men.
In short, they are statists who couldn't care less what the Second Amendment, or any of the others, or the Constitution itself actually says and means, for they mean to simply rule... by whatever means necessary...
That a relatively explicit test case for the Second Amendment should finally be accepted by SCOTUS at this time, after all the decades of tangential obfuscating, avoiding and evading dealing with the issue head-on leads me to believe that the fix is in to finally destroy the Second Amendment and begin the long-desired process of disarming the American people.
I fervently hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe I am.
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.