Court agrees to rule on gun case

SCOTUSBLOG.com ^ | 11-20-07 | SCOTUSblog

[robertpaulsen]

"My take: I can't imagine how anyone could read the Second Amendment and not arrive at an individual rights interpretation."

Well, there's individuals acting collectively as a militia or there's individuals acting as individuals.

Most of the federal courts have ruled the former. I think it was the part about "a well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment that tipped them off as to the intent of the amendment.

Without that part, I think we'd be looking at "individuals acting as individuals".

[robertpaulsen]

""well-regulated militia" with "state-regulated militia" ... are not synonymous."

Meaning the "well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment could be referring to ... what? A federal militia?

[Abundy]

There been a controversy over whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right or whether it grants a collective one.

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant anything to the individual. It delegates certain authority to the Federal Government.

The Bill of Rights was a declaratory document that specified certain rights that individuals and the States did not delegate to the Federal Government.

Don't let anyone tell you different.

Oh, and their aren't "individual rights that are exercised collectively" in terms of the BOR. We do, however, delegate certain powers to government. But when you are talking about the first eight amendments to the constitution, you are specifically talking about individual rights that are exercised individually.

Regardless of what some retards might claim.

[robertpaulsen]

"One wonders if the SCOTUS will cop out with a narrow ruling that only applies to DC."

If the U.S. Supreme Court had refused the case, wouldn't that have been the result anyways?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Send it to them with a picture of Lawrence Tribe on it. Or even Alan Dershowitz. :) Nothing like having liberals who understand what the 2nd Amendment actually means thrown in their face.

[robertpaulsen]

"But when you are talking about the first eight amendments to the constitution, you are specifically talking about individual rights that are exercised individually."

Yeah, like the freedom of assembly.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Most of the federal courts have ruled the former. I think it was the part about "a well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment that tipped them off as to the intent of the amendment.

The only court that counts ultimately is the USSC and where have they ruled definitively that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right only? And remember, even if the first part of the Amendment were to be taken literally as a prerequisite for gun ownership the "militia" as defined in the 18th century was every able body not in the military.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Yeah, like the freedom of assembly.

What exactly are you implying, that an individual has no right to peaceably assemble and petition the government but that he or she can only do it in a group?

[El Gato]

Indeed, the question is rather narrow - without being unfair

Of course it only applies to the laws being challenged. BUT, they cannot rule on that question without also ruling whether the second amendment protectes an individual right.

By next summer we will know if we still live in a Free Republic, or if it's time to hit the reset button.

[robertpaulsen]

"The only court that counts ultimately is the USSC and where have they ruled definitively that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right only?"

They haven't. If they had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

The USSC gets involved when there is a conflict between the lower Federal Circuit Courts. The USSC will look at the rulings of the Federal Circuit Courts in coming to their decision.

"the "militia" as defined in the 18th century was every able body not in the military."

According to the Militia Act of 1792, it was limited to able-bodied, white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. Less than 20% of the U.S. population at the time.

[El Gato]

There been a controversy over whether the Second Amendment grants an individual right or whether it grants a collective one. The weight of American history and legal doctrine favor the former.

Not quite. The second amendment does not grant *ANYTHING*. It protect a preexisting individual right, a right of the people. It does not say, "the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms". No, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Rights are not granted by government. In fact, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, governments are created to secure, that is protect, rights.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You haven’t told me anything I don’t already know. It was simply a matter of attempting to understand your argument that perhaps the collective interpretation of the lower courts were correct?? That’s how I read your post. The conflicted rulings means only one side can be right, I don’t think there’s a middle ground between the two.

[robertpaulsen]

"What exactly are you implying, that an individual has no right to peaceably assemble and petition the government but that he or she can only do it in a group?"

Where did, "petition the government" come from? Not from anything I said. Are you just making things up as you go along? Having a problem with reading comprehension?

Don't put words in my mouth. Comprende?

The freedom to assemble is an individual right that is only exercised collectively. Like voting. Or bearing arms.

[robertpaulsen]

"that perhaps the collective interpretation of the lower courts were correct??"

I'm just saying the odds are not in our favor if the USSC examines lower federal decisions over the years.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You have a very strange way of comprehending the Constitution just from the very few posts I've read of yours. The right to assemble is an individual right, one person can do it or a million can do it.

You're making a very amateur attempt to define some liberties that can only be exercised "collectively" as a way of justifying gun control. If I want to go stand outside the WH with a picket sign I'm free to do it, and so are you. It's not a right that can only be exercised collectively.

[rfp1234]

"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."

Exactly. There is no mention of when the militia would be formed.

In an emergency, the free state can call upon its arms-bearing citizens to mobilize into a 'militia'. On the other hand, if unarmed citizens have to be coerced into defending the state, then that state is not FREE at all.

[Albert Guérisse]

Why stop at that? I’m hoping they repeal NFA 1934.

[Filo]

Well, there's individuals acting collectively as a militia or there's individuals acting as individuals.

Most of the federal courts have ruled the former. I think it was the part about "a well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment that tipped them off as to the intent of the amendment.

Without that part, I think we'd be looking at "individuals acting as individuals".

You should look a few things up. Education is worth the effort, especially when all you've got otherwise is unadulterated ignorance:

1. What is a militia? Pay special attention to what the founding fathers (you know, the guys that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) thought a militia was. They wrote extensively about it.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." - George Mason

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee

2. Check out the previously referenced article covering the grammatical structure of the amendment and its meaning within that context. Just type "THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT" into your favorite search engine and read the text.

3. Read a "history of law" book or two and look especially carefully at the way the courts worked for the first 150 years or so of our nation's existence and contrast that to the way they've worked since FDR mucked with them.

4. In coordination with the above, do some research about judicial activism. It’ll be an eye opener.

While you're at it, read the various state Constitutions that were used as source documents for the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Some more founder’s quotes for you to ignore:

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" - Tench Coxe

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington

[Filo]

Meaning the "well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment could be referring to ... what? A federal militia?

In the parlance of the day, "well regulated" meant well equipped and practiced.

It absolutely did not mean that the militia was under state control. That would have run counter to the entire concept.

The founding fathers made a clear distinction between a standing army (which they did not want) and the militia made up of all of the people.

[Stat-boy]

Save your breath [technically—your fingers and time]. All robertpaulsen does is argue against the 2A, for hundreds and hundreds of posts.