Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
For some 30 years, the District of Columbia has banned handgun ownership for private citizens. It was approved by that city's council in the wake of terrible gun violence and a rising murder rate in the nation's capital.
The ban has stood through this time with other council votes, but without any official review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sometime next year, the high court will make a ruling on whether that law is constitutional.
It is surprising to us that it has taken this long for the court to get this case. It would seem that it would have gone to the highest appeal long before now. We do not understand all the legal entanglements that must have kept it off the court's docket, but it is certainly there now.
And now, if the court is acting properly, the D.C. gun ban should be struck down.
This is a clear case of constitutionality, not politics, not conservative or liberal. If Constitution's Bill of Rights clearly allows gun private gun ownership anywhere — and we believe it does — then it allows it in the District of Columbia.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is what the Second Amendment says, and there seems to be little "wiggle" room in that statement.
In some instances — Washington, D.C. being one of them — we admit we despair of so many guns in the hands of so many people who would use them the wrong way, but the answer is not to abrogate the Constitution.
If one portion of the Bill of Rights can be limited by a local government, why can't another? There is no logic in saying on the Second Amendment is up for local review. To continue to allow this is to invite a city council or state legislature somewhere to decide that the First Amendment is too broad, or that the Fourth Amendment is too restrictive on law enforcement.
We know there are passionate arguments for gun control and that is part of the problem: The passion has blotted out clear thinking. This time the NRA is right. The law should go.
So women, especially single women, including widows, had no right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
Voting when there is no election is logically impossible, assemble is probably not a logical term when applied to a single person, but it's quite possible, and perfectly logical that one person can both keep and bear arms, militia member or not.
They are, but AFAIK, they aren't issued weapons at the current time, although they certainly were during WW-II.
But you could concievably exercise it alone, if no one else showed up to vote for say, the weed control commissioner for your weed control district. Heck you could write yourself in. It's not likely, true, but it's not a logical impossibility either.
Do you think the Founders would have considered a militia with no weapons "well regulated"?
It was an irrelevant tangent to the argument. RP threw it up there as a red herring.
He created a distracting fact that people would argue against that would take away attention from the true thrust of his opponents arguments.
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
IOW, we have to check at least once a year to see that the "unorganized" militia, the people at large in Hamilton's terms, have provided themselves with the proper arms and equipment.
Hamilton was arguing for creation of a select militia, something like today's National Guard, but he was not arguing against having a "general militia" as well. The Bill of Rights in general, and the second amendment in particular was created to assure the Anti-Federalist, that Federalist like Hamilton would be prevented from "misconstruction or abuse of" the Government's powers
Not for most purposes, however the state defense forces have a non military mission, such as disaster relief, most of the time. In fact the Texas State Guard was recently called up and prepositioned in South Texas, in case a Hurricane that ended up farther south, had hit South Texas, instead. One of their missions would have been evacuation on the borrowed school buses they took with them. It was considered a good training event.
Then if we follow RP’s logic we’ll find that without firearms they aren’t a well regulated militia, and until they are the don’t have any right to firearms.
Again, similar principles as "keep" ... i.e., the claim that carrying concealed is "not military"...but then claiming that carrying unconcealed is "threatening"...
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.Doing the math, Madison computes a regular army to be at most 1/25 of able-bodied men (30K), implying the total of able bodied men was 750K. He then asserts that opposing them would be a militia of 500K men (ie, the majority of all able-bodied men in the US).
The clear implication here is that Madison is envisioning the "militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment as consisting of ALL able-bodied men, and thus the right to keep and bear arms would necessarily be extended to ALL the people
Note also that only half of the male population would be considered by Madison to be "able-bodied". This comes from the simple fact of life that battles in the age of single-shot muskets generally consisted of firing one mass volley, then charging with bayonets, which means that only those with sufficient upper-body strength to be able to fight with sword and bayonet would be credible members of the militia
“While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
— UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
I don’t interpret “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community” as meaning adult white males. It simply doesn’t specify that. All it specifies in “a national community”, which could easily be everyone.
Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment might be struck down on the grounds that “the people” refers, implicitly or otherwise, to white, male adults? I see no explicit reference.
Ah ... but even with that reasoning, the Founding Fathers _still_ wrote “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, not “the right of MILITIA MEMBERS ...”. Yes, Hamilton reasonably observed that trying to keep _everyone_ up to military par was nigh unto impossible, yet clearly the value of having _everyone_ at least part way there (to wit: armed and familiar therewith) is unquestionably useful to the security of a free state.
Oh, and before you go back on the old retread of “the people aren’t everyone”:
Using your reasoning that “the people” were just “white male citizen landholders”, that _still_ does not equate “the people” to “militia members only” as not everyone who could vote was capable of serving in the militia (to wit: old men).
Considering that various Constitutional challenges have been brought to expand who constitutes a recognized voter, “voters” now includes pretty much everyone except children, felons, and non-citizens - which means that if you equate “the people” to “eligible voters”, then the 2nd Amendment applies to pretty much everyone except children, felons, and non-citizens - or you have to give up your “the people means voters” reasoning.
No, only "the people" had full rights under the Bill of Rights.
They had the right. I said the 4th amendment didn't protect that right from federal infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court said exactly the same thing. Twice.
What's you're problem? If you're saying that right was protected from federal infringement, let's see some support for that statement.
I'm not.
"or the right only of those in a well-regulated, militia, which ammounts to the same thing?"
It protects the individual right of members of a well regulated state Militia to keep and bear arms from federal infringement.
Cut and paste and stop misquoting me.
Sure, though that's not what the second amendment protects. Like voting, the second amendment protects an individual right exercised collectively.
Mark
Hamilton was calling for assembling every person in the United States once or twice a year to see that they were properly armed and equipped? You're kidding, right?
"The people at large", "the whole people", "the people", "Freemen", were all the same -- adult, white, male, citizens. They were the Militia. Hamilton suggested that they be assembled once or twice a year.
He went on to say that there was no way to arm, equip, and train "all the militia".
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.