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 if a right is not protected you lose it. Its gone.
That implies that someone then gives you back the right later. Who, the government? The government gives its citizens rights?
How about this? If a right is not protected, that means it's not protected. You still have the right, it's simply not protected. Yes?
You and your girlish hysterics.
Oh c'mon, must I link you to other threads and quotes?
Based on that, my whole point was that the U.S. Supreme Court could conclude that "the people" were those individuals who were members of a well regulated state Militia.
Some of "the people" were, just as some of "the people" reared the children or taught in schools. Militias were a chore for males generally but you do know that in the War of 1812 women and little boys were known to take up their arms and fight as well? If you want to present evidence however that "the people" were this small, select group of individuals only and the government was free to violate everyone else's rights as they pleased I'd love to see it.
May I then ask WHY YOU WANTED IT!?
This post makes no sense. Prove to us that a landowner who got old and could no longer fight in a militia suddenly lost his rights to keep and bear arms. What happened back then, at a certain age did Uncle Sam come and take the gun away? Your theory says that it was for a militia only so if one was no longer able to serve in a militia then out goes the gun correct? There has to be case law somewhere that this did in fact take place.
The opinion had to do with individual rights. Whether "the people" in their conclusion were white property owning males at the time only or everyone is not relevant.
I never said he lost his right. I said his RKBA was no longer protected by the second amendment.
Why would his right need to be protected? If he's no longer in the Militia, why would the second amendment protect his right?
"then out goes the gun correct?"
Out goes the gun? What's next, we hang the poor guy?
Out goes the gun protection, yes. He's still allowed to keep it until a law is written saying he can't. You know of any laws against a 60-year-old owning a musket? Think one might be written soon?
Millions of Californians don't have their RKBA protected yet they legally own guns.
But that's where we disagree as it's strictly your opinion of which you've provided no evidence. Surely there has to be some court case in the early to mid 19th century where the government said sorry old timer but we can take your musket as you're no longer protected by the 2A. The fact is that type of thinking only came into being in the 20th century.
The Supreme Court can, and has, concluded all sorts of up-is-down and black-is-white nonsense.
That doesn't change the fact that your arguments are absurd @$$pulls.
Well, then, your whole attempt to assert limitations on who comprise "the people" whose RKBA is guaranteed by the Second Amendment has been mooted by case law. So why are you even bothering, unless you derive some perverse satisfaction from making an ass of yourself in public?
Ummmmm......yes. Except for slaves, felons etc. Of course it makes little difference as you cleared up the Constitutional "shortcoming" your promoting with your own US vs Parker case.
Why do you keep arguing with yourself?
Now forget Parker for a moment and enlighten me on who the "people at large" were.
OK, at least I now understand your context a bit better.
There is some possibility they may rule as you fear, if not for the reasons you listed then perhaps for others. On the other hand I think a ruling is a necessary thing because the gun ban in Washington DC usurps our basic rights. That is what percolated this case and it needs to be resolved.
Um...YOU are the one making unusual claims for limiting RKBA to voters. If I don't think federal RKBA protections are limited to what 13 different states may or may not have defined differently, what motive do I have to prove to you something that is irrelevant to my view? YOU are the one who keeps insisting on "the people" being a limited group; I'm just asking you to show the laws defining exactly what that group is, instead of your fluxuating handwaving.
If you can't show, by quoting law, what that limited group consists of, then I have to presume there isn't the limit that you claim exists.
Do I have to prove your point? no. If you can't show legal justification for your view, you're the one with the problem - not me. Remember: I'm the one who holds that "the people" means "everyone" (save a few adjudicated exceptions). You're the one claiming limits - now show the law defining those limits.
Or are you implicitly conceding defeat?
I’ve been wondering that myself. He has admitted his “the people = the voters of 1792” view has been rendered moot by the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment, and the 19th Amendment, and the 24th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment. Case law has enforced the position that “the people” consists of no less than adult non-felon citizens. ...yet he won’t let go of the “white male citizen landowner” thing.
If not so much fun it would make the head hurt eh?
ctdonath2 I think robertpaulsen stands by that because in his view if I'm reading his posts correctly it proves the 2nd Amendment was about being for a militia only. If it's found anywhere in history that "the people" originally included more than them such as with women or the old then the whole theory falls apart.
Still even if "the people" was limited to white property owners it doesn't necessarily follow that the 2nd was intended for militias strictly as white property owners were considered of a higher class than everyone else and therefore their rights were more important, no matter what they entailed. As the D.C. Circuit accurately points out, the 14th Amendment set it straight.
"The people at large" was a term used to describe the enfranchised body politic. Other terms were "the people", "the whole people", Freemen" and "Freeholders". The all meant about the same thing -- those who vote and are connected with the country, taxpayers/landowners, citizens with "full" rights.
In 1792, that was only adult, white, male citizens. Coincidentally, the same people as those in a Militia.
Today, of course, "the people" include women and non-whites. If you are enfranchised, you are "the people".
That's why I want him to show the laws, from all 13 states plus any relevant federal law, defining exactly who that group entailed. IF "the people" was ultimately limited to a subset of the general population (say, his "white male citizen landowner" subgroup constituting about 20% of the population), then he should be able to demonstrate exactly what the boundary of that group was. Hypothetically, the Supreme Court in 1794 could have been given a case whereby someone claiming 2nd Amendment protection could show, by pointing at existing law, whether or not he was within the protected group or not - and if defended by robertpaulsen, RP would have to point to the law showing the boundary of that protected group.
Thing is, he won't show such a boundary. I asked him to, and the issue has been discussed at length, and yet RP will not, or can not, articulate where that passionately-defended boundary is - which is telling.
Oh he has conceded defeat already. He is a disruptor who will not answer posts addressed to him.
It's a good thing this is only protected by their respective state constitution.
But who are the unorganized militia?
I guess it only applies to the first 13 colonies also?
Exactly and I've repeatedly challenged him to provide evidence that this select group only, whatever it was confined to constituted "the people" as I know of no case law or written opinions from that era that spelled it out. There are several regarding slaves but none about women, or the old unable to serve in a militia, or non-property owners. To my knowledge they were all afforded the protections in the BoR such as trial by jury or the right to assemble or to free speech.
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.