Possible Second Amendment challenge

M

Mannlicher

New member
http://www.local10.com/politics/10485690/detail.html

District of Columbia is arguing at the US District Court of Appeals, that the Second Amendment only applies to Militias, NOT individuals.
This has been hashed around for years, but evidently its been 70 years since the Supreme Court has looked at the issue.

One can only hope that the current membership deal with this now, before President Rodham appoints Joe Biden and Chuck Shumer to the Court.
 
I remember when they said it only applied to the National Guard but the problem was that there wasn't a National Guard when the 2nd was penned. It clearly states "the people". Just another attempt to change the definition of a word.
 
I doubt the high court will even hear the case because if they use the actual writtings of the time they will have to strike down all federal firearm laws.
 
From the article:
If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting statement. It implies that the government will forever be stable and entirely just and the citizens will never need to protect themselves against tyranny. Such absolute statements of "never" and "always" are something that should be avoided.
 
From the article:
If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting statement. It implies that the government will forever be stable and entirely just and the citizens will never need to protect themselves against tyranny. Such absolute statements of "never" and "always" are something that should be avoided.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Also, the Constitution isn't asking if a well-regulated militia is necessary...it is stating that this is so. If somebody thinks a militia is no longer necessary (which I disagree with, and I suspect those who founded this country would still disagree with), then they need to push through a Constitutional amendment. I encourage them to give it a shot, and to be honest if they can make it happen then I suppose I'd have to honor and support that. Until then, a well-regulated militia is necessary, because the Constitution demands it.

Also, the text is fairly clear on at least one point: it is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms that is being established...it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You can argue all day on what is meant by "keep and bear," "arms," and "infringed." But at the end of the day it is most definitely a right of the people you are discussing and not the right of the National Guard or any other such crap.
 
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"
Click to expand...
Alan Gura is the lead attorney in Parker v. District of Columbia, et al.

A few of us have been waiting for this case to proceed. It was delayed from orals earlier in November. If you are interested, you can read everything about it here.

It is an extremely interesting case, especially the "new" idea that the right is nothing more than a civic duty as regards involvment in the militia. A rather sly twist on the "collective" right theory.
 
Let's form them then

We need to start up some then. So we the people are secure from an out of control govt.
 
The milita cannot be the people - The People are the militia.

In all of the debates surrounding the constitution there is zero evidence that anyone argued the 2nd amdendment applied to the states or only to members of "the militia" as some kind of organized body.

Has anyone ever challenged the '34 NFA on the basis that Class III firearms ARE protected because they do have a relevancy as a militia weapon? Since in Miller v U.S. the court used the test that in order for the weapon (a sawed-off shotgun) to be excluded from regulation under the NFA the defendant needed to show that it has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia -- it would seem logical that one could show that ownership of M16's and their civilian counterparts would "have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a militia".
 
Has anyone pointed out to the leftist knuckleheads that only people can have rights? The federal government has enumerated powers and states have reserved powers.
 
2nd Amendment challenge

In the Supreme Court's 1939 decision it said the National Guard is NOT th Malitia. It also said that every able bodied male/person from 18 to 60 years old IS THE MAILITIA. When/If called up we are to report for duty with the firearms used by today's military.
 
Not quite correct

In the Supreme Court's 1939 decision it said the National Guard is NOT th[e] Malitia [sic]. It also said that every able bodied male/person from 18 to 60 years old IS THE MAILITIA [sic]. When/If called up we are to report for duty with the firearms used by today's military.
Click to expand...

First, learn to spell "militia" correctly.

Second, if you are going to refer to a case, DO SO. The USCT rendered many decisions in 1939; Miller was just one of them.

Third, it is not "from 18 to 60 years old." Per 10 USC 311, the period of eligibility is from 17 to 45.

Now do we all know what the terms of the debate are? :rolleyes:
 
What I thought after reading today's article was if, for some reason the court declared "the people" did not refer to individuals, then could it be concluded that the use of "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments are also not referring to individuals? I'll bet a decision like that would get a few more "people" interested. Then again, maybe not.
Josh
 
Militia no longer necessary???

Who in the hell decides that? Let me answer that: NO ONE!!! A well armed militia will always be necessary. I'll bet Great Britian thought a militia was no longer needed as well. Especially after the militia got done whipping their A$$. People are so stupid sometimes. The people run the Government, not the other way around. No one will ever take my guns. I live in Illinois and our Governor doesn't like "assault"/semi-automatic weapons. If he gets his ban passed and wants to come take me guns then he can try but he may not like the outcome.
 
No one will ever take my guns. I live in Illinois and our Governor doesn't like "assault"/semi-automatic weapons. If he gets his ban passed and wants to come take me guns then he can try but he may not like the outcome.
Click to expand...

Gee Duckman, that's not what you said on the Katrina thread. (What it will be like)

I guess it wont be that bad then, because to me it looked like a couple of bored guys dresses up in their tacti-cool attire not doing anything!
Click to expand...

badbob
 
The issues in Parker are:

1. Does the District of Columbia’s total ban on the possession of handguns acquired after 1976 and the possession of functional long guns in the home violate citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

2. Do individuals who have been personally threatened with prosecution by government officials if they act on their sincere and undisputed intent to possess currently prohibited firearms have standing to maintain a pre-enforcement challenge to that prohibition in federal court?

The laws being directly challenged are:

D.C. Code § 7-2507.02: "[E]ach registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia."

D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a): “no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.”

D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a): “A registration certificate shall not be issued for a . . . (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976.”

D.C. Code § 22-4504(a), which provides that movement within ones own property or business of even a registered firearm is unlawful.

[Taken almost verbatim from the appellants brief.]
 
Since it has been 70 years since the Supreme Court last settled the 2nd Amendment issue, I don`t think the issue will ever be at rest if the Supreme Court decides to settle the matter again. Anti-gun, anti-freedom people just do not get it.

On four occasions- in 1866, 1941, 1986, and 2005- Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it. And the anti`s are still breaking the law.
I just can not understand that. What gives a politician the power to change a law that is written in the Bill of Rights? A politician was voted in office by the people, so whatever law or bill that politician wants passed, has to approved by the people, right? Not by what he/she thinks it should be.

So, are the judges and senators of Washington D.C. breaking the law themselves by stating citizens do not have 2nd Amendment rights? I can not believe they have the gall to say that.

I think in 2007 is going to a tumultuous year on gun issues.
 
The problem is that many people do not know what the word "regulate" means.

Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: 're-gy&-"lAt also 'rA-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>
Click to expand...
So in the proper context(non Anti-speak), the first part of the 2nd A simply states that the Milita should be always kept in good order. In modern wording this would be refered to as being properly maintained. To put it in modern context, the 2nd would read,
A well maintained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
How people can twist it to mean something else is simply dishonest. The first part has has no impact on the meaning of the second part. An example would be if I said, "In order to keep my car properly maintained, I need to go buy new tires today." Even if we got rid of the first part, it does not change the meaning of my statement. In fact, the first part has no meaning on it's own. It is verbal fluff.
 
Crosshair said:
The problem is that many people do not know what the word "regulate" means.
Click to expand...
No... The problem is more of the "Living Constitution" line of thinking. Simply substitute the original definition with what it means today. So that we get:

A well governed (or directed) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's also selective in its meaning of "militia." Turns the whole phrase into something it never was.

Of course it is dishonest. The the inherent nature of politics! (aside: and to think I'm gonna run for mayor, again!)
 
I find it interesting how clearly the original draft of the 2nd amendment as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the US HOUSE of Representatives ...

It was rewritten many times until made what it says today .... but it still means the same thing. Their intent was clear ... the right of the people to bear arms was never to be infringed.

The original draft :

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

NOTICE ...it seperates the right to bear arms and military service in a militia. Thus whether part of the militia or not ... you had the right to own firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top