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.
Yes. (Less the insane, the feeble-minded, and prisoners.)
HOORAY!
After ten thousand posts, he finally agrees!
Raise a glass and let the marginal differences slide for a while.
Robert Levy and Alan Gura, with the backing of the CATO Institute, are the ones truly pushing this to the Supreme Court. DC is doing so only because it’s their last chance to get the Circuit Court loss overturned; Mr. Heller et al won at a lower level, but enthusiastically support raising it as high as possible. Getting to SCOTUS was the goal from the beginning.
Like Stewart, where they found that a convicted felon could make his own machineguns?
(Yeah, it was overturned en banc, but the reasoning by the 3-judge panel was marvelously sane, coherent, and Constitutional.)
Your Art. I section 2 reference includes restrictions/qualifications. The others you list don't. Thus the latter all refer to the same group, the people of the United States. The Former only to qualified voters, except to the extent that the People of the Several States are represented in that voting by the qualified electors.
All wanted an armed citizenry, even Hamilton, the foremost proponent of a Select Militia. But some, like Gerry, most definitely did not want a select militia at all. It was to pacify them, the anti-federalists, that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights was formulated and passed. They also wanted a "well regulated" militia, one well suited to its tasks.
Nope, just one that can understand a simple English sentence.
Grammatically the first and third commas are superfulous and do not appear in the versions sent to some states, nor in the Official record, The United States Statutes at Large
You have to remember that documents were all hand copied at that point, until they made it to a printer that is. It think the 1st and 3rd commas, which do not change the meaning, were put there for ease of reading, or actually because whoever was copying it thought there should be commas there, for ease of reading.
Of course it won't. Not directly anyway. The court itself posed the Question to be answered.
Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 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?
There will be three answers, one for each section of the DC code, yes or no. However their rational will be important. If they find the answer is "yes" for even a single one of those, it will almost certainly be because they've determine the right is individual, belonging to indivduals not necessarily part of any state-regulated militia.
That of course will trigge a whole bunch of other cases challenging this or that gun law, federal, state and local.
Come to think of it, if "privacy" becomes a Roe-v-Wade type issue in this case (which it may) then Stewart could be revisited.
The difficulty in being a good, constructionist justice is safeguarding the original intent of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the individual citizens have the right to bear arms) with changes in society to which those original principles still apply (e.g., the individual citizens have the right to bear all types of firearms, not just muskets).
That said, I have no idea which way the court will go. With it being acceptable to limit the possession of automatic weaponry and so many cities having already banned firearms in essence (NY) with little or no contest, they may well say that our civil liberties can be infringed if local situations warrant a type of ‘martial crackdown’ for public safety. It would be a BS reading, in my opinion. But at this point I wouldn’t be surprised.
You have a God-given, inalienable right to self defense, which man may not take away. But not a God-given, inalienable right to self defense with a gun.
If the RKBA was God-given (like the right to life and liberty) then everyone has it, right? Or does God only give certain rights to certain people?
What other kind of "arms" are there? And why are guns excluded from my G-d given right to self defense and preservation of liberty?
An armed citizenry was useless without training. And training everyone would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution ... the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable."
"Ask ultra-liberal lawyer Lawrence Tribe what the second amendment means. He will reluctantly tell you; an armed citizenry."
Well, duh. What else would a well regulated Militia consist of, armed cows?
The Founders stated, clearly, in the second amendment that it was a well regulated Militia that was necessary to the security of a free State, not an armed citizenry.
I think so. Rather than changing their laws to allow assembled weapons at home or allowing registration, they chose the "big showdown". They've got nothing to lose -- they've already lost.
Granted, there's little we can do about it, but I think dancing in the streets is inappropriate, uncalled for (given the factual history of the second amendment), and way too premature.
Well duh. It consists of an armed citizenry, exactly what you state above as being “futile and injurious”.
Your asinine attempt at saying that there can be a “well regulated militia” without there being an “armed citizenry” shows at face that you do not have any serious understanding or consistency of understanding of the second amendment.
Before 1792, there was no militia act, but there were well regulated militias. Since the second amendment was written before the 1792 Militia act, it is apparent that the Founders understood that there did not have to be government oversight in order for militias to be “well regulated”.
The 1200 men of the Massachusetts 4th Division under Shepard were a militia. Since that was five years before the Militia Act of 1792, how in the world could they have been “well regulated”?
I use it because it, constitutionally, defines "the people" as those who select House members.
Since the individual states had different requirements for the electors of state senators and the electors of state representatives, the second half of Article I, Section 2 clarifies which electors they're referring to.
It should be clear to anyone reading that exactly who "the people" were.
"The others you list don't. Thus the latter all refer to the same group, the people of the United States.'
Why would the Founders do that? Why would they have "the people" mean one group in Article I, Section 2, and something different elsewhere?
Look at the constitution. The Founder were quite specific. When they meant citizens they wrote "citizens". When they meant an individual or all individuals (e.g., the 5th amendment) they wrote "person" or "persons". And when they meant the enfranchised body politic, they wrote "the people".
You say the latter refers to "the people of the United States". I have no idea what you mean. Are you being intentionally vague? Who are, specifically, "the people of the United States"? All individuals, including foreigners? Just citizens? Just adult citizens? Did it include women and children and non-whites in 1792? Does it today?
I mean, nice theory, but it crumbles when examined.
I agree they didn't object to an armed citizenry. Far from it. But that's not what they intended for the defense of the state. For that they wanted a select Militia. And they wanted their arms protected from federal infringement.
There is absolutely no reason for the second amendment to be written the way it was if it simply protected the right of citizens/individuals/persons to keep and bear arms. None.
State constitutions protect that right.
By "a whole bunch" you mean in all those states where they currently don't allow handguns and other firearms for private use in homes".
I understand that you don't have the time to list the entire "bunch", but maybe you can list one state that doesn't currently allow this?
Sure there was. It was to prevent people from saying "Oh, it's sbout hunting guns", or "It's about having home protection".
The second amendment is specifically detailed that an armed citizenry, which can organize itself without restriction, is necessary for a free State. It was that organized militia tradition that allowed us to overthrow the tyrannical government that was oppressing us.
If there were not an armed citizenry, the creep of tyranny would again take over.
This is why the anti-federalists pushed for the Bill of Rights. That is why the Founders gave the Bill of Rights. It was to explain, in writing, those Rights that our Founders saw as self-evident.
Without an armed citizenry, there could be no well regulated militia. Without a well regulated militia, there could be no security of Freedom from the government.
The rights are not to be infringed because it is necessary for the security of a free State.
Some say all individuals. I say the evidence points to only those individuals who were members of a well regulated Militia.
Given my general definition, that right, today, extends to women and nonwhites. It also extends to the arms in use today. (The latter was confirmed by the Miller court.) But it still only protects the right of individuals as members of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringement.
"they may well say that our civil liberties can be infringed if local situations warrant a type of ‘martial crackdown’ for public safety"
The Parker court admitted that even if it is an individual right it may still be regulated.
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.