Associated Press – December 7, 2006:
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd 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 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” applies to all people or only to “a well regulated militia.”
“We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms,” said Todd Kim, the District’s solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
“Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the way you do,” Judge Laurence Silberman said. “It doesn’t appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century.”
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment’s language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
“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?“
Just an addition, regardless of whether the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution applies to individuals or militias, it should be noted that state constitutions are generally not as ambigoius. For example, the Constitution for Michigan unambiguously states, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
Your Damn right its necessary… Look at the crime rate lately…Lets fight back…
DC is a territory.
Precedent established there doesn’t necessarily apply to the REAL states.
Yes, JP more guns. Cause the answer to violence usually involves more violence, sounds good to me.
Is the First Amendment still necessary? After all, we have politicians and news companies to speak for us and to us.
See the Penn and Teller “Gun Control is Bullshit” show for the real facts.
I’m curious David – whats your answer to violence? Bleeding?
Is anyone really foolish enough to wade hip deep into this question?
Even I (crazy unsubstantiated opinions and all) don’t wanna be caught between the rabid furies of gun zealots on the right and peace & love loonbats on the left.
The answer to gun policy should be in the reasoned center… but no one in the fight ever seems reasonable or centered.
It’s funny to me that the same people who insist that the Constitution guarentees a woman the right to have an abortion are the same poeple that want to delete the 2nd Amendment.
Keep in mind that the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were to limit the power of the government, not the citizens.
Anyone who thinks the constitution and bill of rights hasn’t already been shredded should re-read 1984.
Maybe they’d like to sign up for Iraq (where the private contractors will soon outnumber the military) so they can shoot all the folks they want.
We’ve moved the wild west to the middle-east.
I ‘m sure many of you have heard this argument before, but I think that you will find in perusing the papers of our founing fathers that one of the main reasons for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the citizenry against the tyranny of the government itself.
“… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
– James Monroe
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
“To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (Federalist Papers #46)
#3, guns = violence?
A gun is just a tool. Do we give guns to our police so they can commit violence? Do you think there would be less violence if we took the guns away from all of our police?
“…then you might just be a redneck.”
A ban on guns is ridiculous. In the end the criminals won’t care if it’s illegal or not…they’re criminals. All you’ll do is turn guns into another black market item (like drugs), giving the criminals another money-maker.
In much the same way DRM only seems to cause problems for the people that try to buy music legally, banning guns will only hurt the people that abide by the law because now they’re defenseless against the armed thug that’s about to mug them.
Shut the fuck up or i’ll shoot you
Unless you can get me cheap ammo.. then we can talk
This lawyer is full of shit.
From USC TITLE 10:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Your current government (I am Canadian so that is why I say ‘Your’) seems crazy as all hell and hell-bent on removing every right you have. I don’t like handguns, because handguns (as opposed to rifles, shotguns, which can be used to hunt) are meant for the express purpose of ending human life and no other, but considering how absolutely nuts the Bush administration and intelligence organisations seem to be about detaining citizens without cause, I sure as all hell would not want to also be stripped of the right to bear a weapon to defend myself.
why stop with handguns? why not allow everyone to own a nuclear bomb or two, to defend against the King invading?
John
Your post is right on the verge of “meddlin”. This is how MY country got involved in Iraq.
You know…………..never mind no comment!
We will soon have no ability to protect ourselves thanks to the left, and no right to complain about it thanks to the right. All thanks to the hordes of you sheeple out there, letting your favorite network heard you in the direction of their choice.
Attorneys from DC should be shot.
Now that was just a joke but seriously, there is still a lot of country out here that owning a weapon is a prudent thing to do. Not all of us live in the concrete jungle, and when a mountain lion starts hanging around my house, I need to scare it off. If its a politician, of course, Its shoot to kill. Another joke.
If the government takes that right away from us, I think that will be the last act before they instigate some fake terrorist bullshit and declare martial law. Then we are all up s**t creek.
12. Bob is exactly right. The only people who will be giving up guns are the legal ones (registered) owners who arent the ones you need to worry about. You better believe I will be seeking weapons on the black market if this ever happens, and you will too if you have any brains. This is NOT a civilized world, no mater what bleeding hearts think.
#15
Handguns may be used to end human life too often than they should be, it is not there only purpose. Like other guns they can be used for protection and defence. I live in alaska and go hunting several times a year, i hunt with my rifle but i always carry a pistol in a hostler on my belt while doing so. Hand guns can be loaded and aimed much quicker than rifles or shotguns for the most part. If I am camping out and I upset an animal in anyway, given that im close to the animal, i might not have time to load my rifle and take the shot if that becomes necessary.
**For all practical purposes, in urban areas handguns are about only good for ending human lives, that could meen defending yourself from someone breaking in, or committing crimes.
+1 for #20….
Regards,
Stu (NRA member and 2A supporter).
The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED IT IS PLAIN ENGLISH READ IT, FOLLOW IT. DON’T EVER TRY TO INTERPRET IT, IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT IT IS A STATEMENT AND IT IS AS VALID TOADY AS IT WAS 200+ YEARS A GO
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION HAS BROUGHT US NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (IE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, ROE V WADE, JUDICIARY POWERS ECT ) just read it ! It is plain simple English any one can understand and it was so well written it still works today and will work forever into the future
Can I add another senerio for NEEDING a gun??
To take back this country from those who have taken away.
If the Gov is the only one to bare arms, we might as well be back in the 1400’s. Relaying on our KING to protect us. And Even our Gov has Stated, that it cant protect us.
When they can only check 1/10th of incoming cargo for radioactives, weapons, or even Persons…
when the Canadian border is basically OPEN to anyone that wants to take a short Hike.
when a Farting lady is enough to ground an airplane.
When our own Gov, has contracts that were NOT bid for, or havent been bid is years..
Our Gov. used to do the work ITSELF, and now has contracts that have gone up in Cost, and we dont question it.
Haliburton….
When we PAY our taxes and NOTHINg is being done with the money, except to pay Big corps to SIT on their butts and do little or nothing.
Do you think its about time we amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal? If you go messing with the constitution, there are always consequences good along with the bad.
Mark I agree with your post. There are times when guns are needed. I have no problem with shotguns and rifles, etc. which would serve perfectly well in your sort of situation. What I have a problem with is the other types of guns.
I live in a suburb of New York (this is not out midwest somewhere I guess is my point) and our local gun store sells guns specifically for killing people as fast as possible. I’m not just talking handguns. The local gun store sells SUBMACHINEGUNS. Thats right, I walked in there and saw guns on display I’d only previously seen in Tom Clancy games. They had all sorts of fully automatic weapons.
Do you mind me asking… what the hell are these for?? You’re not telling me you’re going gunting with an AK-47. Why can these just be bought in stores. My position is ban all guns except ones that can be used for hunting and defense, like rifles and shotguns.
Gun control has for the most part been on the outs as of late. Its not like the 80s and 90s where gun control was popular. Now most pols steer clear of oppressive gun control that was conceived in the last decades. Gun control doesn’t work, as criminals will always get guns as easily as they get drugs. Gun control only serves to disarm the populous make them dependent on the Gov for protection.
These fuzzy thinking clods have the strictest gun control laws and the highest murder rate in the country — go figure.
#27…. they’re fun. Shooting ranges, recreation, sport. Is that a damn problem?
I’m guessing you skimmed the rest of the comments at best so a refresher, they keep the government in check. The only thing that’s keeping them as honest as they are is good old fashioned fear.
And DALE, wow… what the hell use would a nuke be against our government? That’s like imploding your house to kill a cockroach. We still kinda have to live here even after a fight. Use some damned common sense please. This country was born of revolt, doesn’t it make a little sense that it stay a part of the country? We’re just lucky that so far most of our changes to the government have remained non-violent. But we might not always be that fortunate, and I for one would like to know that IF the time comes to fight I can be equipped.
I’m really not too worried about Bush instituting martial law, or anything serious for that matter. I’m worried about some asshole getting elected who will abuse the powers Bush created. Don’t think a psycopath couldn’t get elected, that crazy magical bastard hitler managed just fine. It’s still very possible for someone just as insane and charismatic to come around.
Call me paranoid, but I’m gonna say it’s not an if but a where and when. My goal is to make that as far from here and now as possible.
Wow! because of the second amendment, if we all banded together, in three years time we could make the US look a lot like Iraq!!!
Color me unimpressed…