The right to arm

The Washington Times ^ | June 16, 2008 | Staff editorial

[neverdem]

Most Americans believe that owning a gun is the right of every citizen. According to a Gallup poll, 73 percent of the U.S. public believe that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to gun ownership. Therefore the Heller decision, which is expected any day now, could play a pivotal role in the 2008 presidential campaign. Former Ohio Secretary of State-turned-pundit Kenneth Blackwell calls it "the Roe v. Wade" of gun rights and suggests that the case (and its results) will ripple beyond District borders to impact "90 million American gun owners."

It was six D.C. residents, fed up with escalating crime and the inability to protect themselves in they city they love, who filed suit in 2003 to challenge the constitutionality of the District's ban on handguns. The lawsuit was dismissed but reversed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found that the petitioner: 1) had standing to bring the lawsuit, 2) is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (handguns) and 3) therefore, the District "is not open to ban them."

Last year, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty failed in his petition to rehear the appeal, paving the way for both defendant and plantiffs to petition the Supreme Court. That brings us to where we are today, in the midst of a presidential election when opinions on every matter are measured at every turn and the issue of "gun rights" is beginning to weave its way in and out of the political debate.

Generally speaking, more gun owners identify as Republicans (53 percent) than identify as Democrats (39 percent), according to Gallup. And a Harris poll...

--snip--

The Gallup poll cited also found that the majority of Americans don't actually own a firearm (only 35 percent say they do)...

[swain_forkbeard]

“...why not re-write it and spell it out...?

Spell out what, exactly? Everybody seems to want it to be clear and simple, but it’s not.

[RWB Patriot]

“WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT A POLL SAYS.”

Because people think some things need to be popular or supported by a majority in order to be legal (Too bad the same idea isn’t applied to homosexual marriage), which is true in some cases...however, Constitutional freedoms are not one of those cases.

And polls matter to anti-gun fascists only because it helps them decide how to whine about them. If a majority of people support firearm ownership, they can push the “We must protect the rights of the minority” whine; if a minority support firearm ownership, they can push the “The majority have spoken and we must obey” crap.

[wastedyears]

***2) is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (handguns) and***

That would be a TOW missile launcher mounted on the bed of somebody’s pickup.

[wastedyears]

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust our current government in a Constitutional Convention.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"90 million American gun owners."????

More like 190 million gun owners.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“The Gallup poll cited also found that the majority of Americans don’t actually own a firearm (only 35 percent say they do)”

And nearly 25% of the population is under age 15. That means that 46% of the population over age 15 own a firearm.

[RKV]

Don’t know about you, but if some stranger asked me if I owned a gun, I would deny it. None of their business.

[An Old Man]

Let's see now. . .

Maybe they crosslink the Drivers License, Vehicle Registration and CCW Permit Application data bases. Na, they woulden't do that. Would they?

In addition to where you last used your credit card, they can also tell you what your mothers maiden name is and when your dog was born.

[neefer]

A friend of the family who was a police officer advised me to never register a firearm and to purchase privately.

[Cobra64]

Most of mine are registered but being that “they are on my boat, they get lost overboard.”

[joe fonebone]

The second amendment was written so as to allow the people the means to overthrow a rogue or runaway government. Therefore, it is not only our right, but our duty to possess whatever weapons the military possesses. This includes machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks ( if you can afford them ) and so on. See tagline

[tumblindice]

An interesting paradox, I think, is that many of the same people who deride the possibility of enforcing USC Title 8—”We can’t deport 20 million people!!”—simultaneously propose stripping 4-5 times as many (Americans) of legally purchased firearms: “assault weapons!”

For them I have 4 words: Don’t tread on me.

[EdReform]

Spot on. Well said!

[Centurion2000]

bump

[arthurus]

I am not entirely optimistic about the coming 2AMD decision. We might have another Kennedy majority.At least three of those Justices would be happy to declare the 2AMD unconstitutional. There is even a sort of precedent for that at the state level- the Colorado Court a few years ago declared a properly accepted state constitution amendment unconstitutional and everybody just said Oh, what a shame!

[arthurus]

The logistics is easier in convincing 5 Justices to effectively declare the 2AMD null and void than it is to get the 2AMD properly repealed.

[wastedyears]

I agree, the only limit to what a person can have should be if they can afford it or not.

[neverdem]

I am not entirely optimistic about the coming 2AMD decision. We might have another Kennedy majority.

We'll see who eats crow within two weeks. I'm not worried about Kennedy if he's consistent with his questions and comments from the oral argument. We might have unexpected allies.

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

[B4Ranch]

(Han Solo) “I’ve got a bad feeling about this...” (/Han Solo)

Wait until the next administration puts its boots on and that when the depression will really set in deep.

[arthurus]

It is kind of a rule of thumb that you cannot predict a justice’s decision by his questions. Kennedy would also have a chance here to be the deciding factor in the most momentous decision of the Court since maybe the School prayer decision or even Marbury. Ruling for plain English would be a deal but not “transforming.” I am not predicting such an outcome but I am not at all comfortable right now. If it comes down against 2AMD I expect the prices of guns and ammo to go straight up as the shelves are cleared by buyers.