Posted on 11/24/2007 12:34:43 AM PST by gpapa
In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.
That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
agreed! the framers of the constitution went out of their way to make sure the entire text was framed under the principle of individual rights. Collective rights doesn’t really exist.
So nine of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights are for the individual, but the 2nd one?!? It’s specific to the government which is supposed to based on individual rights.
Is the Second Amendment an individual, or collective, right?
Gee, that's a toughie?!? I collect guns (BATF 03 License) but I don't think that's what 'they' mean by 'collective right'. Hmmmm, let's go to some of the 'constitutional experts' and see what they have to say...
Last but not least, 'ole TJ himself, whom the Leftists adore oh so much for his ONE LETTER regarding a 'wall of separation'...
Okay, I think that pretty much clears it up - problem solved. Individual Right, next.
[ (all others capable of bearing arms.)]
I’m not sure if this is an exact quote but it is the crux of the issue! I just hope the s’premes are smart enough to not be bulldozed by the commie left.
I don’t have to have a JD in constitutional law to know this. Answer this simple question:
If the right to bear arms was not intended as an individual right, why didn’t the Federal government start taking up the guns of the citizens right after the Bill of Rights were adopted???
It is time to slap the aspiring totalitarians and globalists who are for gun control back into irrelevant oblivion where they belong once and for all.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Because of the placement of commas in the 2nd Amendment, I believe that the people's right to bear arms should not be infringed upon.
HEAR HEAR
great post!
The 2nd Amendment *The Right to Bare Arms*
It has other info/data too. (just in case you want to bookmark)
bookmarked and thank you!
I don't believe that San Francisco has any gun prohibition more serious than the entire state of Kalifornia. If they have passed some recently, it will meet the same fate; being struck down since there is pre-emption regarding gun laws in Kalifornia. Only the Kalifornia legislature and governor are allowed to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Insightful answer.
Are you an able-bodied male aged 17-45, registered with the Selective Service System, familiar with the weapons you already own, and trained to whatever degree* the state & federal governments see fit? Yes? then you fit the "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment.
* - that the gov't chooses to not train you does not squelch your 2nd Amendment right and compliance.
Here’s what I taught my high school students when I taught American history.
The Constitution was written and designed to maintain individual freedom and thwart tyranny. There are a variety of methods to do this in the Constitution; as a last recourse, people have guns and can use those guns to create a new government or fight efforts to take away their freedom.
I guess I’m just too stupid to be a member of the District of Columbia government and legal team, though.
They don't.
They simply don't approve of what it says, and deal with it by simply denying the plain meaning of words - and while you get all wound up with trying to explain what they don't want explained, they simply continue ignoring what it plainly says.
The answer is “yes”???
Tell me you are not kidding there???
It is NOT a collective or fundamantal right...YOU leave a door open for that kind of incorrect interpretation for our government to exploit and YOU’VE just screwed us from here to Christmas!!!
It is an inalienable indivudual right for us to keep and bear arms...Period!
We can go and look at basic English law (Black’s reference), Federalist papers, and scores of academic references that prove it is just that...INDIVIDUAL!
None of the other first ten Amendments to the Constitution strayed from the intent that the individual is to be held in higher regard than the government...Some people must believe that the Bill of Rights is some form of guideline that the people need to adhere to or use as a template to structure our place in the bigger scheme of things...Well its NOT! It is a template that creates the boundaries and regulations/restrictions upon the elected government in this country...Somehow that reversal seems to be a brain-fart that has somehow permiated the minds of some elected officials and others who believe the BOR’s is their ticket to govern...
The “militia” (by definition wayyyyyyy, after this all was put on paper) and these government and collective rights interpreters are hacks that are dumber than bags full of hammers on this one little thing...
People need to start thinking a bit more, and stop buying into this garbage being put out by this agenda...
What is going to win the grassroots, and keep the conservative voting block to gether is going to be that one candidate that does nothing but talk about the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM, and this SECOND AMENDMENT OPINION coming up by the Supreme Court of this country...
That candidate will solidify and bring to the vote in November the very people that they DO NOT want to come and vote, and want them to be jaded and not participate in any of the process...
Everything else is going to fall into place just fine if people stick to their guns, pardon the pun...And of course, repel boarders!
Good post!!!
(You) “...time to slap...”
(Me) “...beat into loving admission of their shortsightedness, and hopefully to never, ever to think this was a good idea ever again...”
Slaps don’t leave permanent reminders...
“Are you an able-bodied male aged 17-45, registered with the Selective Service System, familiar with the weapons you already own, and trained to whatever degree* the state & federal governments see fit? Yes? then you fit the “militia clause” of the 2nd Amendment.
* - that the gov’t chooses to not train you does not squelch your 2nd Amendment right and compliance.”
Where do I find these criteria? Are you making stuff up?
I am a 59 yr. old Army veteran. So I WAS trained, but I don’t meet your criteria because I am too old, although I remain able bodied. Once registered with Selective Service, I completed my service requirement.
According to what you wrote, only males 17-45 should have firearms?
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.