You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Article by Robert Levy in 27 Sept. Cato Daily Dispatch www.cato.org
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
Hugh Damright
New member
I can't seem to agree with either side of this argument ... I believe that there is federal protection of a general RKBA, not a select right of a minority in some formal militia ... but I do not believe that this protection extends to personal guns for personal use ("the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting") ... it's a shame we have all this deceit intended to reconstruct the 2nd, rather than an honest question of to what degree personal arms are protected by the US militia power.Their first argument is that the Second Amendment ensures only that members of state militias are properly armed, not that private citizens can have guns for self-defense and other personal uses.
I disagree. If the US needed militia, and the people had rifles and shotguns but no handguns, I think they could still meet their duty. In contrast, if the US called forth militia, and they had only sabers, that is a completely different reality. Since all sides agree that banning all firearms would go too far, I don't know why Silberman suggests that "all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted". Silberman's argument seems the more "frivolous" to me."It's okay to ban handguns as long as rifles and shotguns are permitted."
The D.C. Circuit, for good reason, called that argument "frivolous." "It could be similarly contended," wrote Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, "that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted."
First, the 2nd doesn't apply to the States. Second ... the idea that the 2nd applies to DC but not the States seems like a sensible theory, but wasn't Levy the guy going on and on about how a textual analysis proves that the 2nd is binding nationally, that "free State" means "free Union", and so on? Isn't he one of the lawyers that started this mess, intending to reconstruct the Second Amendment to bind the States ... is he really ready to concede that the 2nd binds DC but not the States?"D.C. is like a state, and the Second Amendment doesn't apply to states."
That argument fails on two counts. First ... the Supreme Court decided that ... the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" most of the Bill of Rights in order to hold state governments accountable for violations.
Second ... Because the Second Amendment indisputably applies to the federal government, it therefore applies to the District, a federal enclave.
Here in Mayberry, I think a handgun ban would cost lives. I don't know whether that is true or not for DC. I reckon it's up to them to decide that for themselves."Handgun bans work"; they've "saved countless lives."
No. It is reconstruction to contend that the second does not bind to the states.intending to reconstruct the Second Amendment to bind the States
But, we've been here before, and I don't think anyone is going to change their mind. "And around and around we go...."