Why DC's Gun Law Is Unconstitutional

History News Network ^ | 2-18-08 | David E. Young

[neverdem]

Mr. Young is the editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment, a source document collection cited extensively by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its Emerson decision and also by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its Parker decision. (The District of Columbia vs Heller case is Washington D.C.'s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the Parker decision. ) He is also the author of a recently published definitive history of the Second Amendment entitled, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms. Information on Mr. Young's books and research is available at http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf

Carl T. Bogus, Counsel for Amici Curiae

http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

The first link is the History Professors brief according to the second link..

[umgud]

Sounds like some pretty powerful stuff. Glad SCOTUS has this fellow’s writtings.

[muawiyah]

All of which is very nice and no doubt instructive. On the other hand the "legislation" in question was passed by a body other than the United States Congress.

The Constitution says Article I Section 7 regarding the authority of Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever".

Since Congress didn't enact the legislation per normal procedures outlined in the Constitution, the law has no Constitutional authority.

I predict the Supreme Court will get to that part and make its decision per the words in the Constitution ~ and that's the end of the DC council's "gun law" and the start of DC government's Executive Branch "gun rule".

[therut]

Carl Bogus Jr. is on the Board of Directors for the NRA. He disagress with his father or I should say he is honest and his father is a fraud.

[rellimpank]

—I think you are confusing him with Carl T. Rowan, Jr.—

[Redbob]

Don’t tell us: tell this to George Bush’s Justice Department...

[chesley]

These fifteen professional academic historians have overlooked something of fundamental importance for understanding the Second Amendment by so quickly dismissing the related provisions that are found in every period state bill of rights, all of which are Revolutionary Era documents

It wasn't overlooked

[Joe Brower]

Excellent arguments. But let's face it, our main worry isn't history, or the facts, or the truth, or even the laws of nature itself -- they all fall squarely on the side of private firearms ownership.

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

[Dead Corpse]

In before Bobby comes to piss on yet another good thread.

[P8riot]

me too

[uncbob]

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

Exactly

[mvpel]

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

Well, at least then it will be evident where we stand, and what meaning the phrase "rule of law" retains in America.

I really am not too worried about that, so since that's the primary worry, I'm not too worried at all. To wit:

The historians assert, for example, that Pennsylvania's language--"the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"--does not refer to a private right.

I'll bet when counsel for DC and the solicitor general are through being raked over the coals for this and many other absurdities in their reasoning, they'll wish they'd had 4.5 minutes, instead of 45 minutes of oral arguments.

[stevie_d_64]

Good stuff there!

For all my doom and gloom I say about all of this, its not hard to know where I would rule on this issue...

And its not based upon a personal preference either...

It just rubs me wrong to know there are people in a position here to really screw things up for everyone that are going to base it on their own personal preferences and not upon the Constitution and its supporting documents...

[from occupied ga]

With some slight modifications

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just posted in this forum. But different men often see the same subject in different lights. The question before this forum is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery.

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Supreme Court for the last seventy years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the forum. Is it that Kelo decision that makes you optimistic? It is King George II's Insidious smile? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this sudden willingness to hear a 2nd amendment case comports with those previous cases which have destroyed the basic freedom in the Bill of Rights. Are swat teams with the same firepower as the armored cav necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which tyrants resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Washington any domestic enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of swat teams and armored vehicles? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which Washington have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last forty years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing.

You don't have to change it much to put the federal government and especially the supremes in a somewhat less than trustworthy light All you have to do is substitute Washington for Great Britain, etc.

[JDoutrider]

Guns Up! Bump!

[Publius Valerius]

The Supreme Court has held that “exclusive” simply means the ceding states would retain no authority over the District; it does not mean that the power is nondelegable.

Check out District of Columbia v. Thompson Co.

[logic]

Well, at least then it will be evident where we stand, and what meaning the phrase "rule of law" retains in America.

I thought we pretty much figured that out when the Felon in Chief responded, "it depend on what your definition of "is" is..."

[paul51]

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality constitution be damned.

[mvpel]

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly talked about the Second Amendment in terms of an individual right over the past 70 years. Even Kennedy and Souter concurred in Verdugo-Urquidez, which talked about the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments all in the same sentence.

The terms "shall not be infringed" and "the people" are subject to much less ambiguity than "public use," and their clear and unambiguous meaning is meticulously documented in David Young's most excellent book, extensively cited in the Fifth Circuit decision.

I don't think my hope is illusory. The Fifth and the Second Circuits agree with me already, and a few stalwart justices in the Ninth Circuit do too. If I'm proven wrong by the US Supreme Court, and they fail to meet my expectations, then so be it, but I think the absurdity and circularity of the DC gun banners' logic when it comes to the Second Amendment is too much even for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to swallow, let alone a majority of the Supreme Court.

I thought we pretty much figured that out when the Felon in Chief responded, "it depend on what your definition of "is" is..."

Don't forget, the Sinkmeister was ultimately impeached and disbarred regardless of the gyrations he went through along the way.

Saying that Pennsylvania's right to arms provision is not an individual right, or that only two states made such a right part of their Constitutions, is the same kind of desperate absurdity as careful parsing of the word "is" and will serve them no better than it did the Sinkmeister.

[muawiyah]

The Supreme Court obviously erred in its earlier decision. Now that they have a Liberal Shibboleth at stake they'll find it much easier to "give up" the DC government than mess with the Second Amendment.

BTW, you have to look at the nature of the case before you can take a Supreme Court decision at face value.