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 Amendments 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 Washingtons 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 ones 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 citys 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?
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".
Meaning the "well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment could be referring to ... what? A federal militia?
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.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had refused the case, wouldn't that have been the result anyways?
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.
Yeah, like the freedom of assembly.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm just saying the odds are not in our favor if the USSC examines lower federal decisions over the years.
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.
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.
Why stop at that? I’m hoping they repeal NFA 1934.
Save your breath [technicallyyour fingers and time]. All robertpaulsen does is argue against the 2A, for hundreds and hundreds of posts.
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.