20 replies [Last post]
bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

Whatever the outcome this will be a big ruling for the second amendment. I'm glad the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312338,00.html

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

This points to the importance of who Americans elect President. The President appoints the SC Justices and it is they who will shape the future of this country with their ruling.

Offline
Joined: 07/30/2007
Posts: 635
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

This should prove an interesting case. I hope it is well covered in order for the nation to follow along. Interesting how they stated the murder rate has declined drastically, but they failed to mention that the FBI report from last year shows that violent crime in the entire nation as a whole has declined considerably. Most likely has alot more to do with something other than gun control. It is displeasing when folks try to interpret the Constitution as if interpreting the Bible. There is no two views, or hidden messages. Our Nations forefathers were men of no nonsense. They were not imbedding secret codes for us to find in the 21st century. They said it as it was, as they meant it, and fought and lived by it. The great sacrifices our forefathers made (which one can only fathom) in the belief of the words they set forth, should in no way be vandalized through the twisting and turning of continuous re-interpretations. If they really want to interpret it, they should have a simple man designated to read it. He'll tell you what our forefathers meant.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

I disagree in that no words are really simple. Even a word that appears simple can have many meanings depending on the context.

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and the belief that it provides for an individual right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, but I can understand how the actual wording can be used to make an argument against it.

I believe that looking at the bill of rights in its entirerity supports that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

The meaning of words do change and thus need to be interpreted. The meaning of militia is different today than it was when the Constitution was drafted.

I do believe that we need to stay true to the Constitution and that we should not add meaning or rights to it where there are none as in the 14th amendment and abortion.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

This underscores the importance of all elections, not just the presidential ones. Those who voted democrat in the 06 elections tipped the balance of power and gave it to people like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. With things as they are, it doesn't matter how conservative or pro-2nd amendment a president is. He can't make SCOTUS appointees without the Senate's approval. As things now stand, I don't think Bush would have a chance of getting anyone on the court unless it was a San Francisco liberal. If the next election leaves the democrats in charge and elects a democrat president, hang on. Good thing this is going to the Supremes now.

Offline
Joined: 07/30/2007
Posts: 635
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

CVC,
I did not mean to imply that words are simple. As we can see from the writings in this forum, meanings are in times not perceived in the way they were meant to be written. I do believe, however, that the second amendment is rather plainly written. Each state may have a national guard which is well regulated, but what happens when they are deployed or unable to respond? I would think that civilians who own firearms, and are legal abiding citizens who follow the law, could in fact be voluntarily organized to form an emergency militia regulated by an appointed, mutually elected, or recognized authority. If there was ever such an emergency, and civilians did not own firearms, who would come to our rescue? FEMA? I may sound wrong to many, but the definition of militia (a body of citizens organized for military service) has not changed.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

Seems to me that the word "militia" has the same meaning today as it did back in 1787, when written. But the word "militia" is not the key word of the amendment nor is it primary. Militia is the result of what comes first - the right to keep and bear arms. The militias back in late 18th century America were composed of average joe civilian citizens who were meant to be ready for duty when duty called to defend the nation against any oppresion (the British). What's changed since then? Basically nothing. The same as today, if our nation was at risk because of a foreign invader or an oppresive government then we have the right and the means to assemble and oppose the opposition. For years in the decades before wasn't it the US govenment who helped fund the Civilian Marksmanship Program? Evidently back in those days the government saw a need for such preparedness. It should be thinking that way again, especially with the current threats we face.

Too many anti-gun advocates get the idea that a free state militia is the National Guard. Nothing can be farther from the truth!!! National Guard is not a militia. It is a part of the DoD, the US Government. Not a civil entity.

The second amendment as is written:

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds to me that the government sees a need for a well regulated militia in a free state, but in order to have that militia, the people must first have the right to keep and bear arms. Basically saying keep arms privately and practice to become proficient with them so that when or if the times comes that your country may need your assistance you will be ready to form or join a well regulated militia. So you see what I mean whe I say that the right to keep and bear arms comes first before any militia can be formed. I read that to mean a Home Guard of sorts. Problem is that I believe the US Govenment has severly neglected it's duty to have the ability to form a well regulated militia should civilians be called upon to protect their free state. Or maybe the government realized that the militia is also intended to protect the citizens from an oppresive government should our government attempt to oppress it's people. In that case the duty and means to form a well regulated militia falls on us, the citizen.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

I don't disagree that the individual is granted the right to bear arms by the second amendment. However, how our founders meant Militia and how some interpret it today has changed.

My point is that we need to put it in the context in which it was intended; i.e., you, me and the rest of us citizens that can take up arms to defend our country against the government or foriegn invaders not meaning a branch of the government, i.e., the national guard.

The key for me in understanding the 2 amendment is that the bill of rights are all individual rights, not state rights. The 1st amendment doesn't give the right of free speech to the states but to the people and so on.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

True, you bring up a good point. The bill of rights are individual right.

Another thing that we often forget about the 2nd Amendment is the word "arms". That word is pretty broad, more so today than it was in 1787. Somehow I don't think that our founding fathers meant it being restricted to just and only firearms. Think So does the word "arms" mean that the 2nd amdt means that I have the right to own artillery, tanks, nukes? I wonder.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case
WesternHunter wrote:
True, you bring up a good point. The bill of rights are individual right.

Another thing that we often forget about the 2nd Amendment is the word "arms". That word is pretty broad, more so today than it was in 1787. Somehow I don't think that our founding fathers meant it being restricted to just and only firearms. Think So does the word "arms" mean that the 2nd amdt means that I have the right to own artillery, tanks, nukes? I wonder.

I wrote and deleted part of my last post on this subject.....but since you posed the question I guess I'll go ahead with my opinion.

I think we should look at the 1st amendment and then apply those principles to the 2nd amendment. The use of words is in no way restricted, i.e., the government can't tell you what words you can use. They can, however, impose reasonable restrictions on how those words are used to protect others. You can't slander someone, you can't yell fire in a theater, you can't use words to harass someone, etc., but there are no restrictions on the amount or type of words you can possess.

Similarly, there should be no infringement on the type or quantity of arms you may possess. It is reasonable to restrict how those weapons can be used - you can't murder someone, you couldn't practice with a weapon in a residential area, etc., but there should be no restrictions on ownership, possession, type or quantity by a law-abiding citizen.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Supreme Court Will Hear DC Handgun Ban Case

What I thought was interesting was the 1939 case, where the ban on sawed-off shotguns was upheld on the grounds that such a weapon would not be used in a militia.

If that logic were to follow, then the right to own select-fire assault weapons would be reinstated, and things like .22s and .410s and muzzleloaders would be banned. If the idea is for me to be able to respond to the state's need, then I ought to be able to own arms commonly employed by the military -- to include a 40mm grenade launcher if I wish.

This highlights the quandary for the anti-gunners. If they interpret it as an individual right, the gun bans fall. If they push the militia case, there's precedent on the books that suggests that military utility would factor into what's allowed -- and that opens up the assault weapons they despise. Either way, they're hosed. The NRA has been trying to get this issue to the Supreme Court for years -- hopefully we'll get favorable resolution. However, if they rule that some regulation is allowed, they'll open the door for Sarah Brady and crew.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like