That silly second amendment rears its ugly head again

[Beantown Bronco]

SECOND AMENDMENT, RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,
MILITIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GUN BAN, HANDGUNS

District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290)

Oral argument: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
(November 20, 2007)

The District of Columbia bans possession of handguns, and bans
anyone from carrying a handgun or other deadly or dangerous
weapon without a license within its borders (the "Gun Ban"). It
also requires that any firearms which may be kept within the
District, such as rifles, be kept either disassembled or with a
trigger lock. These are some of the most restrictive gun laws in
the nation. Joseph Heller claims these laws violate his Second
Amendment right to "keep and bear Arms." The Supreme Court has
not taken a Second Amendment case since 1939, and it has never
decided whether the Second Amendment confers a right to bear
arms upon individuals or only upon the militias it refers to in
its opening clause. In the intervening 69 years, the federal and
state governments have passed many laws regulating and
restricting the ownership and use of guns. Should the Supreme
Court uphold the D.C. Circuit's invalidation of the Gun Ban, it
could have a substantial impact on these gun laws and will
almost certainly lead to more litigation as gun rights advocates
challenge those laws as violating the Second Amendment. If the
Court finds that the Gun Ban is constitutional, it will
strengthen the ability of government to regulate gun ownership,
and may result in more restrictive gun laws across the country.

Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-290.html

[cutthemdown]

This sounds like an issue Obama would rather not see come up right now.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

This sounds like an issue Obama would rather not see come up right now.

Is there an issue he WOULD like to see come up right now?

[Florida_Bronco]

This is a very important case for firearm owners and ethuasists. I have a feeling the SC will rule in our favor though.

[dark_hawk]

Originally Posted by Florida_Bronco

This is a very important case for firearm owners and ethuasists. I have a feeling the SC will rule in our favor though.

I sure hope you're right. Otherwise I can see a lot of other places following suit.

[snowspot66]

The entire state of Montana is watching this case and I don't just mean individuals.

http://progunleaders.org/

Ignore the crappy website. The text is whats important. The basic run down is this...

The state of Montana has declared that if the pro gun side is ruled against they claim the compact between Montana and the US has been violated. That is to say that Montana would feel it has the legal right to secede because it's contract with the US has been violated. This doesn't mean they will secede or even want to. Just that they state they have the legal right to do so.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

The entire state of Montana is watching this case and I don't just mean individuals.

http://progunleaders.org/

Ignore the crappy website. The text is whats important. The basic run down is this...

The state of Montana has declared that if the pro gun side is ruled against they claim the compact between Montana and the US has been violated. That is to say that Montana would feel it has the legal right to secede because it's contract with the US has been violated. This doesn't mean they will secede or even want to. Just that they state they have the legal right to do so.

Well, then again South Carolina didn't fare too well after they decided to
secede from the union in 1860. General Sherman was especially hard on
South Carolina because they were the first state to secede.

[ElwayMD]

When will they learn that taking guns away from honest law abiding citizens only gives the criminal with a gun more power? All the scum in D.C. (not counting the politicians) are licking their chops right now.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ElwayMD

When will they learn that taking guns away from honest law abiding citizens only gives the criminal with a gun more power? All the scum in D.C. (not counting the politicians) are licking their chops right now.

When will the country learn letting anyone buy firearms like candy gives criminals more power?

[tsiguy96]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

When will the country learn letting anyone buy firearms like candy gives criminals more power?

criminals will have guns regardless of how restricted the gun laws are, i dont understand why all the politicians and everyone dont realize that? if you ban guns, the only ones who will have them are the criminals.

[ElwayMD]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

criminals will have guns regardless of how restricted the gun laws are, i dont understand why all the politicians and everyone dont realize that? if you ban guns, the only ones who will have them are the criminals.

agreed...not like they are going to stop and say "hey it's against the law to do this". So we end up with a bunch of people armed that have no respect for the law of the land. Sounds like an ideal situation for no one.

[TailgateNut]

I actually looked at some land deals in Montana last week. Seeing this makes it more valuable in my mind.


Cue Frank Zappa's "Montana".........I might be movin' to Montana soon......

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

When will the country learn letting anyone buy firearms like candy gives criminals more power?

Fair enough...but how do you propose to keep guns out of the wrong hands while not infringing on the rights of the law abiding? I've yet to hear any reasonable suggestions that are not already in place, but maybe you have an idea you'd like to offer?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

When will the country learn letting anyone buy firearms like candy gives criminals more power?

When will you learn that criminals don't buy guns at gun shops; that there are many laws already in place to prevent criminals from buying guns legitimately; that criminals don't obey the law anyway; and that firearms don't magically turn people in criminals?

Hard to believe just one sentence can be so wrong.

[Rohirrim]

"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."

You've got to admit, it's not a very well written amendment. What the hell does it say? That the federal government can't infringe on the right of state militias to be armed? Or on individuals? Given the nature of the argument at the time (state rights vs. centralized federal government) I would say the intention of this amendment is to bar the federal government from regulating, or being allowed to disarm, the militias of the states. It does not ban the states from regulating firearms possession of individuals.

[W*GS]

Interesting take, Ro - and yet completely at variance with interpretation of the 2nd.

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

"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."

You've got to admit, it's not a very well written amendment. What the hell does it say? That the federal government can't infringe on the right of state militias to be armed? Or on individuals? Given the nature of the argument at the time (state rights vs. centralized federal government) I would say the intention of this amendment is to bar the federal government from regulating, or being allowed to disarm, the militias of the states. It does not ban the states from regulating firearms possession of individuals.

IIRC, wasn't there a supreme court ruling stating that the 2nd amendment also protected the rights of individuals and not just "militias"

Not only that, but there are writings of Thomas Jefferson and others that explain their intent of the 2nd amendment.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Interesting take, Ro - and yet completely at variance with interpretation of the 2nd.

I do my own thinking. Last week, Scalia was arguing that torture might pass Constitutional muster. Bush v. Gore was the most inept, biased and stupid ruling since Dred Scott. In Scalia, we have our modern Taney. I'm just reading what it says, not putting in what people want it to say. Here's what Jefferson said about it (note that he never mentions an "individual" right separate from militia necessity).

"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

I don't take from that an inherent right to own a grenade launcher. I take it to mean that any state governor tomorrow could declare that only registered and trained members of the national guard may bear arms within their state.

[Old Dude]

I don't really care which way they rule on this, but it will be nice to finally get something definitive one way or the other.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

I don't really care which way they rule on this, but it will be nice to finally get something definitive one way or the other.

This current SCOTUS is the last judicial body I would want ruling on this. They must be the most incompetent, biased collection of pinheads that has ever worn the robes. If our country has the good fortune to survive the Bush regime, I'm afraid future courts will spend much of their time dismantling what this collection of boobs comes up with.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by ElwayMD

When will they learn that taking guns away from honest law abiding citizens only gives the criminal with a gun more power? All the scum in D.C. (not counting the politicians) are licking their chops right now.

The point isn't to take away guns from law abiding citizens. The point is
to keep guns out of the hands of crazies who go around shooting up
schools.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I take it to mean that any state governor tomorrow could declare that only registered and trained members of the national guard may bear arms within their state.

The basic flaw in this "collective right" interpretation is that the phrase "the People" would mean different things in different amendments. Why?

If your belief is true, why doesn't the 2nd Amendment read:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The point isn't to take away guns from law abiding citizens. The point is to keep guns out of the hands of crazies who go around shooting up schools.

How do you plan on doing that without unreasonably infringing on our RKBA?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The point isn't to take away guns from law abiding citizens. The point is
to keep guns out of the hands of crazies who go around shooting up
schools.

That may be the point, but wont be the outcome. Criminals will always find a way to own guns.
I'll be damned, or dead before they take mine.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by W*GS

How do you plan on doing that without unreasonably infringing on our RKBA?

What I would propose is that if someone wants a gun they would have
to demonstrate a legitimate need to have a gun. Hunting, law enforcement,
home security. Then they would have to undergo a vigorous and extensive
background check, similar to that required to get a security clearance.
Anyone caught in possesion of a gun without the proper clearance and
documentation would be subject to a mandatory 5 year prison sentence
with no parole for a first offense, a 15 year sentence for a second offense,
an life imprisonment for the 3rd. This would not be just limited to those
using a gun to commit a crime. This would be anyone caught at any time
with an illegal gun. Few people would risk such a severe punishment just
to knock over a 7/11.