Antipitas - My hat is off to you... I could only get through the initial merits before D.C. seemed like 1st year law students grasping at straws to make their argument.
D.C. argues that their ban on handguns is "reasonable"...
QUERY: Would DC Counsel also suggest that there is no abridgement of the 1st Amendment if people were permitted to speak freely, but prohibited access to printing presses? Or that there was freedom of religion if worshippers were prohibited from praying together?
I also wonder how D.C. will handle the right of a disabled person who has but one hand and wants to own a handgun. Are they denied and is this a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
It would be highly amusing to read the response if The Court asked D.C. Counsel to reconcil the above statement with the Militia act as follows;
Since the initial militia act permitted militiamen to provide their own arms of whatever bore side, power, range and effectiveness. Would this not be equivalent to them "unilaterally" choosing what arms to own?
Then there is this little tidbit;
Comment: Though Congress declared MUSKETS to be a specific bore size, no mention of a standardized RIFLE bore is mentioned. We can conclude that congress allowed significant leeway to the militiamen to "unilaterally" select an appropriate rifle for militia use.
Furthermore, we see the importance Congress puts upon militia arms by requiring such arms to be exempted from seizure in matters of lawsuits and even the payment of much-needed taxes.
More reconciliation needed:
D.C. relies on the "militia" clause to be the sole determinant of the purpose and limitation on possession of firearms...
Here D.C. seems to argue like Al Gore's Global Warming zealots that "it's a fact if we say so"...
More amusement if The Court asks District Counsel to reconcile the idea that private weapons possesion was not of interest to the Framers based on the following quotes at the time;
Arguments are scheduled for March.
Who's bringing the popcorn?
D.C. argues that their ban on handguns is "reasonable"...
In other words, we haven't yet completely disemboweled your rights, we left you a few!The majority dismissed as “frivolous” the District’s contention that its regulatory scheme is reasonable because other weapons, such as shotguns and rifles, fully vindicate residents’ interests in self-defense. PA53a.
QUERY: Would DC Counsel also suggest that there is no abridgement of the 1st Amendment if people were permitted to speak freely, but prohibited access to printing presses? Or that there was freedom of religion if worshippers were prohibited from praying together?
I also wonder how D.C. will handle the right of a disabled person who has but one hand and wants to own a handgun. Are they denied and is this a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes.
The first clause—“[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—speaks only of militias, with not a hint about private uses of firearms. A well-regulated militia is the antithesis of an unconnected group of individuals, each choosing unilaterally whether to own a firearm, what kind to own, and for what purposes.
It would be highly amusing to read the response if The Court asked D.C. Counsel to reconcil the above statement with the Militia act as follows;
Militia Act of 1782 - Section 1:
That every citizen, ..., shall, ..., provide himself with a good musket or firelock, ..., a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, ..., twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle...(emphasis added)
Since the initial militia act permitted militiamen to provide their own arms of whatever bore side, power, range and effectiveness. Would this not be equivalent to them "unilaterally" choosing what arms to own?
Then there is this little tidbit;
and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.(emphasis added)
Comment: Though Congress declared MUSKETS to be a specific bore size, no mention of a standardized RIFLE bore is mentioned. We can conclude that congress allowed significant leeway to the militiamen to "unilaterally" select an appropriate rifle for militia use.
Furthermore, we see the importance Congress puts upon militia arms by requiring such arms to be exempted from seizure in matters of lawsuits and even the payment of much-needed taxes.
More reconciliation needed:
D.C. relies on the "militia" clause to be the sole determinant of the purpose and limitation on possession of firearms...
QUERY: If the framer's intent had been to provide a power or even a "right" to the states, wouldn't the logical conclusion be revising the amendment to read "the right of the several states..." or "the several states have the power to keep and bear arms"?To conclude that the Framers intended to protect private uses of weapons, the majority below read the entire first clause to be extraneous and the second to be in tension with the natural, military meaning of “bear Arms.” If that had been the Framers’ intent, they would have omitted the first clause and used non-military language in the second.
Here D.C. seems to argue like Al Gore's Global Warming zealots that "it's a fact if we say so"...
History confirms the District’s reading. The primary concerns that animated those who supported the Second Amendment were that a federal standing army would prove tyrannical and that the power given to the federal government in the Constitution’s Militia Clauses could enable it not only to federalize, but also to disarm state militias. There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment. The drafting history and recorded debate in Congress confirm that the Framers understood its military meaning and ignored proposals to confer an express right to weapon possession unrelated to militia service. (emphasis added)
More amusement if The Court asks District Counsel to reconcile the idea that private weapons possesion was not of interest to the Framers based on the following quotes at the time;
"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
-- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
-- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
Arguments are scheduled for March.
Who's bringing the popcorn?