Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned (1 Viewer)

[Cold Dirt]

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 8:49 PM

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Here we go again, liberals trying to steal our freedoms away.

This from the same people that whine and cry about how the Patriot Act limits freedoms yet turn right around and support this grab to completely steal our right to own and bear arms.

Liberals, why don't you raise the white flag to anyone that would do this country harm and just get it over with?

 

[TurtleDude]

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Here we go again, liberals trying to steal our freedoms away.

This from the same people that whine and cry about how the Patriot Act limits freedoms yet turn right around and support this grab to completely steal our right to own and bear arms.

Liberals, why don't you raise the white flag to anyone that would do this country harm and just get it over with?

Lets think this through

The purpose of the bill of rights was to recognize rights
rights are held by individual people
governments have power-not rights

the DC attorneys are arguing that the second amendment guarantees the POWER of state and the federal government.

that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights

such an interpretation was created by racist and xenophobic judges many years ago when freed slaves and southern and eastern european immigrants started to own handguns.

the cement of precedent continues to allow racist and xenophobic court created interpretations to remain

no one can honestly argue that the founding fathers intended the COMMERCE clause to delegate the power to regulate individual possession of small arms to the federal government

no one can honestly argue that "the people" in several amendments means an individual right BUT FOR The second amendment

 

[Goobieman]

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia."

Its impossible to create a sound argument to this effect.

Note also the lengthy discussion of this in US v Emerson
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

 

[danarhea]

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Here we go again, liberals trying to steal our freedoms away.

This from the same people that whine and cry about how the Patriot Act limits freedoms yet turn right around and support this grab to completely steal our right to own and bear arms.

Liberals, why don't you raise the white flag to anyone that would do this country harm and just get it over with?

There is a very easy way around that law. Create your own militia and give Washington the finger.

 

[Goobieman]

There is a very easy way around that law. Create your own militia and give Washington the finger.

Unfortunately, the argument also includes the idea that only the state (either directly, or thru its politicial subordinates) has the right to form militia.

DC, not being a state, would only form militia under powers given to it directly by congress.

 

[Harshaw]

One cannot HELP but notice the defeaning silence from the people who have been so up in arms about "civil liberties" over the last six years.

What happened to . . .

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

?

 

[danarhea]

One cannot HELP but notice the defeaning silence from the people who have been so up in arms about "civil liberties" over the last six years.

What happened to . . .

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

?

This is what is wrong with authoritarianism in all its forms. Both the extreme right and the extreme left want to dismantle the Constitution. Both, however, want to dismantle different parts of it. The far left decrys the Bush wiretapping programs and domestic spying, but supports taking away our guns. The far right supports the second amendment, but also supports the end of habeas corpus and domestic spying. Both, of course, favor a supreme Federal government (or nanny) to look after us. Both are dangerous.

Instead of looking at Constitutional rights through a left vs. right prism, we should be looking at this issue as Americans who love America and everything its stands for, and we should uphold and defend the Constitution against any usurpation of those principles and laws from either the extreme left or the extreme right.

 

[southern_liberal]

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Here we go again, liberals trying to steal our freedoms away.

This from the same people that whine and cry about how the Patriot Act limits freedoms yet turn right around and support this grab to completely steal our right to own and bear arms.

Liberals, why don't you raise the white flag to anyone that would do this country harm and just get it over with?

Wikipedia has a well written article on the Second Amendment

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the Amendment:

"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."

The amendment is clear. The amendment is far more concerned with the security and well being of the state. The amendment does not address the individuals personal rights as to wheather or not a person can chose to own a gun strictly for personal reasons. As the amendment reads, the authors of the amendment only wanted to make sure the citizens had access to firearms in order to defend the states.

Speaking as a liberal, Cold Dirt, I could care less if you own a gun as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights of existence. So please watch the blanket statements you make about liberals because most generalizations are usually false. As a liberal, I want to see you enjoy the rights that you are guaranteed under the constitution. It does seem to be a gray area if gun rights is a right. I think that supreme court needs to go ahead and make a solid decision on that.

 

[Goobieman]

Wikipedia has a well written article on the Second Amendment:
As the amendment reads, the authors of the amendment only wanted to make sure the citizens had access to firearms in order to defend the states.

That's the problem with Wiki -- it's FAR from an authoritative source.

As an example - It's entry on this subject, noted above is completely devoid of support.

Domt beleive me?

Provide a quote from anyone involved in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that supports the statement, above.

Just one.

 

[Harshaw]

This is what is wrong with authoritarianism in all its forms. Both the extreme right and the extreme left want to dismantle the Constitution. Both, however, want to dismantle different parts of it. The far left decrys the Bush wiretapping programs and domestic spying, but supports taking away our guns. The far right supports the second amendment, but also supports the end of habeas corpus and domestic spying. Both, of course, favor a supreme Federal government (or nanny) to look after us. Both are dangerous.

Instead of looking at Constitutional rights through a left vs. right prism, we should be looking at this issue as Americans who love America and everything its stands for, and we should uphold and defend the Constitution against any usurpation of those principles and laws from either the extreme left or the extreme right.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Wikipedia has a well written article on the Second Amendment

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the Amendment:

"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."

The amendment is clear. The amendment is far more concerned with the security and well being of the state. The amendment does not address the individuals personal rights as to wheather or not a person can chose to own a gun strictly for personal reasons. As the amendment reads, the authors of the amendment only wanted to make sure the citizens had access to firearms in order to defend the states.

Speaking as a liberal, Cold Dirt, I could care less if you own a gun as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights of existence. So please watch the blanket statements you make about liberals because most generalizations are usually false. As a liberal, I want to see you enjoy the rights that you are guaranteed under the constitution. It does seem to be a gray area if gun rights is a right. I think that supreme court needs to go ahead and make a solid decision on that.

militia is made up from the men and women of the state. When called they must be ready to bear arms.

How can you bear arms in protection of your state if the state forbids its citizens from owning firearms?

And who is to say who can and cannot be part of the militia?

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms"

This above statement says nothing about an militia. its talking about "The People".

 

[Harshaw]

Wikipedia has a well written article on the Second Amendment

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the Amendment:

"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."

Yeah. I'm going to take the Federalist Papers, the US Supreme Court's opinions in US v. Miller and US v. Emerson, and the many fine, fine scholarly works which state otherwise over Wikipedia.

Besides, I'm not so sure you actually read the Wikipedia entry if you come away from it with your concrete conclusions:

The amendment is clear. The amendment is far more concerned with the security and well being of the state. The amendment does not address the individuals personal rights as to wheather or not a person can chose to own a gun strictly for personal reasons. As the amendment reads, the authors of the amendment only wanted to make sure the citizens had access to firearms in order to defend the states.

It does seem to be a gray area if gun rights is a right.

I'm sure that's why it's listed in the Bill of Rights -- to put it in a "gray area."

I think that supreme court needs to go ahead and make a solid decision on that.

They did, in 1939 -- US v. Miller. Of course, it's been misquoted and misconstrued since then . . .

Way to try to explain away an essential liberty, though. :2wave:

 

[Stinger]

Wikipedia has a well written article on the Second Amendment

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the Amendment:

"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."

The amendment is clear. The amendment is far more concerned with the security and well being of the state. The amendment does not address the individuals personal rights as to wheather or not a person can chose to own a gun strictly for personal reasons. As the amendment reads, the authors of the amendment only wanted to make sure the citizens had access to firearms in order to defend the states.

Yes it does.

"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."

The right of the PEOPLE, not the state. And the courts have consistently ruled that rights apply ONLY to people, individuals. This case will be thrown out.

 

[Irished1975]

Its impossible to create a sound argument to this effect.

Note also the lengthy discussion of this in US v Emerson
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Correct me if im wrong, but hasnt this been the official position of all presidents since Nixon? I know Ashcroft made some rumblings about it but nothing taht was set in stone. It was a while ago so I dont remember. And even the supreme court has never really recognized the CONSTITUTIONAL right to bear arms.

 

[Harshaw]

Correct me if im wrong, but hasnt this been the official position of all presidents since Nixon?

No.

And even the supreme court has never really recognized the CONSTITUTIONAL right to bear arms.

US v. Miller. US v. Cruikshank. US v. Emerson.

For what the "Militia" is, see Perpich v. Dept. of Defense.

See also the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, in which Congress, and the President by signing it into law, specifically finds it an individual right.

 

[jamesrage]

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Here we go again, liberals trying to steal our freedoms away.

This from the same people that whine and cry about how the Patriot Act limits freedoms yet turn right around and support this grab to completely steal our right to own and bear arms.

Liberals, why don't you raise the white flag to anyone that would do this country harm and just get it over with?

It is common ****ing sense that the second amendment applies to the individuals.After all it does say "the right of the People to keep and bear arms"If it only applies to militias then why on earth have "people"?


The second amendment addresses multiple rights,one is the right to bear arms and the other is for a well regulated militia.If it only applied to the state then it would not have "people" in the second amendment.I think the "it only applies to the state level"was invented by rat unpatriotic liberals who wanted to blatantly strip away rights.

 

[saggyjones]

You shouldn't classify all liberal as supporters of a gun ban. Where I live everyone wants guns, even the liberals. My extremely liberal neighbor hunts all the time and is kind of a redneck; he jokes that he has so many guns for when the republicans come after him.

I wholeheartedly support the right to have a weapon, save a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun or something. It's obviously in the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't believe that is blind. I won't quote because it's been done on this thread.

 

[Cold Dirt]

You shouldn't classify all liberal as supporters of a gun ban. Where I live everyone wants guns, even the liberals. My extremely liberal neighbor hunts all the time and is kind of a redneck; he jokes that he has so many guns for when the republicans come after him.

I wholeheartedly support the right to have a weapon, save a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun or something. It's obviously in the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't believe that is blind. I won't quote because it's been done on this thread.

Then dont you think it about time liberals like yourself stand up to your fellow liberals that try to speak for you?

Just like Moore, the liberal media tried make people think he spoke for all liberals when in fact he spoke only for the far far left.

 

[southern_liberal]

That's the problem with Wiki -- it's FAR from an authoritative source.

As an example - It's entry on this subject, noted above is completely devoid of support.

Domt beleive me?

Provide a quote from anyone involved in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that supports the statement, above.

Just one.

True. But I thought the article had supporting arguments for both sides of the debate.

The amendment isn't that difficult to read and comprehend though. It's main purpose is to provide security for a free state.

 

[southern_liberal]

militia is made up from the men and women of the state. When called they must be ready to bear arms.

How can you bear arms in protection of your state if the state forbids its citizens from owning firearms?

And who is to say who can and cannot be part of the militia?

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms"

This above statement says nothing about an militia. its talking about "The People".

Good points, and I agree with them all to an extent. You can't take the sentence out of context in order to support your point of view though. Yes, there is a phrase that states we have the right to bear arms, but the entire sentence (the amendment) main focus is the protection of the state. True you have to be able to bear arms to protect the state. But as the amendment reads, you can only bear arms in order to protect the state and not for any other reason, including personal reasons. This is why I feel the Supreme Court really needs to make a solid ruling. I don't have a problem with people owning firearms for personal protection, but as the amendment reads, I just don't think we even have the constitutional right to own guns for that reason. As the ultimate interpreters of the constitution, The Supreme Court really needs to once and for all put this issue to rest.

 

[TurtleDude]

But as the amendment reads, you can only bear arms in order to protect the state and not for any other reason, including personal reasons.

Nonsense. there is no such limitation in the amendment. You obviously have no understanding of the context that the Bill of Rights was created in, and the 9th amendment. Defense of the state is a sufficient reason to bear arms. Preventing a well regulated militia (ie the closest thing to an army that was in existence back then) from becoming a pernicious force is another sufficient reason to bear arms by the citizens. THe limitation "for the common defense" was REJECTED by the founders when proposed. Where does this limitation occur that you claim exists? IT DOES NOT. Where in the BODY of the COnstitution is the federal government DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY to ban or limit the ownership of arms? NO SUCH WORDS EXIST-that is why FDR had to use the COMMERCE CLAUSE to support his gun schemes.

This is why I feel the Supreme Court really needs to make a solid ruling. I don't have a problem with people owning firearms for personal protection, but as the amendment reads, I just don't think we even have the constitutional right to own guns for that reason. As the ultimate interpreters of the constitution, The Supreme Court really needs to once and for all put this issue to rest.

Is this based on your brilliant interpretation of the Amendment or is this an outcome based conclusion where you start from the premise you don't like guns and then twist the words to justify your conclusion? There is no possible way to read the constitution and come up with that conclusion of yours objectively. Study the 9th and 10th amendments a bit more and get back to me

 

[southern_liberal]

Yeah. I'm going to take the Federalist Papers, the US Supreme Court's opinions in US v. Miller and US v. Emerson, and the many fine, fine scholarly works which state otherwise over Wikipedia.

Besides, I'm not so sure you actually read the Wikipedia entry if you come away from it with your concrete conclusions:






I'm sure that's why it's listed in the Bill of Rights -- to put it in a "gray area."



They did, in 1939 -- US v. Miller. Of course, it's been misquoted and misconstrued since then . . .

Way to try to explain away an essential liberty, though. :2wave:

Your assumptions are amusing. I didn't say my opinions are based on Wikipedia; I have the ability to make up my own mind, I don't need Wiki or your experts.

The amendment, based on my reading of it, is clear; the main intent of the amendment is to secure my state, and the ability to secure my states rests with the peoples ability to take up arms in order to do that. How can you not see that? The amendment is written in plain English; no big words, no confusing words, it's not perplexing in the least.

The gray area is not in the constitution, it's in the individual interpretations of the amendments. You do understand what is meant when someone say "gray areas?" It means people cannot come up with a easy solution, not concrete, differing opinions, no consensus. And as lay people (which I assume most of us are) it is not uncommon for us to find gray areas when dealing with constitutional law. But those who are most qualified to put the issue to rest,-the 9 justices of the Supreme Court, not your experts me or you- need to grow a pair and plainly state just what the amendment guarantees.

 

[southern_liberal]

Yes it does.

"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."

The right of the PEOPLE, not the state. And the courts have consistently ruled that rights apply ONLY to people, individuals. This case will be thrown out.

I don't think so because reading the amendment in it's entire context, the people only have the right to bear arms in order to keep a well regulated militia to protect the state. Your right, the bill of rights is for the individual, and not the state. But the amendment states that the individual has the right to bears arms to protect the state, nothing else. It would have been nice if the authors of the amendment would have put the amendment in two separate sentences instead of one, that way, the intent would have been much more clearer.

 

[southern_liberal]

You shouldn't classify all liberal as supporters of a gun ban. Where I live everyone wants guns, even the liberals. My extremely liberal neighbor hunts all the time and is kind of a redneck; he jokes that he has so many guns for when the republicans come after him.

I wholeheartedly support the right to have a weapon, save a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun or something. It's obviously in the Constitution, and anyone who doesn't believe that is blind. I won't quote because it's been done on this thread.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not it's in the constitution. As you've said, you have to be blind to read the amendment and not see the words. I think the argument though is mostly based in context of the amendment, not the words.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think so because reading the amendment in it's entire context, the people only have the right to bear arms in order to keep a well regulated militia to protect the state. Your right, the bill of rights is for the individual, and not the state. But the amendment states that the individual has the right to bears arms to protect the state, nothing else. It would have been nice if the authors of the amendment would have put the amendment in two separate sentences instead of one, that way, the intent would have been much more clearer.

Nonsense again. You operate on the flawed assumption that people only have rights if those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is why I instructed you to read the 9th amendment which you clearly do not understand.

The Second amendment is perfectly clear. Sadly, racist and xenophobic politicians and judges didn't like the fact that -around the turn of the 20th century-handguns were becoming more affordable and blacks and immigrants were obtaining them. They used their power to misinterpret the Bill of RIghts to justify racist and xenophobic restrictions on such disfavored groups to own handguns