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.”
Of course, everyone wants to keep guns for hunting… how noble! But let’s face it. The guns that people really need are for self defense; hence the need for handguns; they’re small and can be used in close proximity. For those who don’t get the chance to shoot as much as they want, an AK-47 should provide a good starter kit against intruders; not to mention the fact that it doesn’t require as much maintenance as other models. So yeah, #27, there’s a need for those too. The 2A provides for putting defense into the hands of the individual; not just hobbies and sports.
Had a look at the second amendment. I don’t see the word FIRE anywhere.
32,
you want a defence weapon…
Try a 410 Double barrel, Darringer…Dont Aim…Point into a room and FIRE, dont even need to look.. Bird shot, EXTRA WIDE pattern.
Make sure you know where you family is.
Its not that dangerous beyond 20-30 feet. It should wound Everything in a room.
…just outlaw bullets.
@ acree: “I live in a suburb of New York … 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… I walked in there and saw guns on display I’d only previously seen in Tom Clancy games… 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.”
While I sympathize somewhat with the sentiment, I’d only point out that the 2nd Amendment was not instituted for the pleasure and convenience of hunters, nor was it intended to be some sort of substitute for personal protection from criminals until police forces were invented. No, the 2nd Amendment was designed expressly for citizens to protect themselves from government military force. Period.
As to what sort of weapons the founders would have thought necessary for that task, the answer in their day would have been ‘Whatever it takes for an individual to do the job’. Personal weapons then ran the gammut from swords & knives to pistols and rifled muskets, to fuse lit cannons. But as quaint as these weapons seem to us now, they still represented the most advanced technology yet devised by man for killing, that a single man could actually handle with minimum training. It was a fait accompli that regular citizens were to be allowed to have such weapons b/c, well, the government itself had ready access to them. To deny them to citizens was to deny them a fair fight (god forbid).
So how to extrapolate that to the present? What constitutes ‘effective protection’ from a government gone bad today? Well, even if you subtract nukes, the destructive power of modern state armies is off-the-charts worse than anything the Founding Fathers could have imagined. Yet the need for a free citizenry to protect itself from said state, in the worse case scenario, is exactly the same. So, logically, it follows that citizens should have access to personal weapons that would allow them roughly the same technological advantages as the state enjoys. Otherwise, again, it’s not a fair fight and the state isn’t adequately deterred from encroaching on it’s citizen’s rights – two goals the Founders wanted met. It’s scary to think what the implications of that are for some people today, but if we’re going to be intellectually honest about what the Founders intended, that’s it.
One final thought – some would point to the Iraq War as a counter to this argument; that they seem to be very successfully tying our modern military into knots with comparitively primitive weapons. I would only point out a few things: A] That the primary rifled weapons the Iraqis are using are exactly the type that are first offered up for banning in this country (AK-47s and assualt weapons in general). B] That in fact they have even more advanced & powerful weapons at their disposal, which are NOT available to the average American. Consider; their IEDs are made out of 155mm artillery shells, their RPGs fire high powered grenades, and now they are introducing shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missles. C] That even these means available to the average Iraqi (and not available here) are still only powerful enough to keep a restrained state miilitary power off-balance. The Iraqis are not winning their country back, nor are they protecting their society – both are being slowly destroyed – and this is not what the Founders wanted here. The 2nd Amendment was a hoped for way of allowing the citizens to do what the founders themselves did in the run-up to the Revolution; arm, organize, and fight in a way that would drive enemies from the field and induce a surrender. Only in this way could the society survive.
Now, there are arguments made that guerilla war tactics make that objective invalid anymore. However, guerilla tactics existed back then too – in fact, Washington expressly rejected using them becuase he knew that what the Iraqis are experiencing today would be the result (i.e. total social distentigration that would make any rebuilding a generational project). And if you think an Iraqi insurgency equipped with M1 tanks and attack copters would be settling for the interminable hit & run war they’re forced to conduct now, you’re delusional. They are already doing whatever they’re weapons tech allows in driving the US from Iraq once and for all – its just that guerilla war IS the best their current weapons allow.
So the militia, as it was defined in the Constitution, was always intended to be only marginally less-well equipped than the army. And the reason for that was to make the citizenry potentially powerful enough to both deter state military action against them, and to allow the possibility for legitimate and expedient success by citizens (the latter to keep the society your fighting for from being totally destroyed in the process).
I wish we didn’t have to concern ourselves with such things. I’d like nothing more than to live in a whole world that could count on states using their police and military powers responsibly at all times. Unfortunately we don’t live in that world, and the Founding Fathers of the US knew that better than anybody. We would be stupid to ignore their wisdom, as well as our own reality.
#7 I totally agree.
From a logical standpoint, Abortion and Gun Control are the same thing. One side wants to protect individual freedom, the other side wants to stop unnecessary deaths. And yet it amazes me that conservatives take the personal freedom argument to heart when it comes to guns, but want the nanny state intervention in regards to abortion rights (which any one with a brain realizes should be covered under the 9th ammendment). Liberals are just as hypocritical the other way around.
Libertarians (who believe guns and abortions are protected freedoms) and moderates (like me who want to see both guns and abortions be “safe legal and rare”) are the only ones who see both issues logically.
Hey, you guys missed the crux of the story. This is Washington DC that we are talking about. It’s where all the politicians are. Sheesh, do I need to spell it out for you? I’m all for keeping guns away from our politicians and all foreign dignitaries who happen to visit. I vote yes!
Seriously, because of the special status afforded to the Nation’s Capitol, I could be persuaded into the idea of that one particular place in the Nation being designated a gun free zone. I think that it may be a good thing.
Somewhere down the road, when it comes time to decide how the city of Jerusalem is to be administered, it would be nice to have a leg to stand on, in trying to persuade the warring religious parties involved, to respect the sanctity of that one spot, and declare it a gun free zone also. I know, my idea is awfully ripe with namby-pamby idealism. I realize also that any such declaration would be mostly only symbolic, yet it does seem to me that where we pray, and where we conduct our governance, are two places where weapons really shouldn’t be.
I’ve read the statistics, it is disgusting and shameful how many innocent lives are lost every hour of every day, right here in the United States due to guns, mostly hand guns. It is a huge price that we as a society have to pay because of this. As sad as it is, it is worth it. Our Rights don’t come without costs. If we don’t cherish, and protect our rights, we will lose them. There is not an army on the face of the Earth that could win a war against 300 million armed citizen insurgents, and every sane government in the world knows this, or at least should.
The right for every citizen to keep and bare arms, is the single most important right afforded to us in the Constitution. It is the only guaranteed leverage we as citizens have to be able to make sure we get to keep the rest of the rights we have been promised.
That said, let us not forget that the once mighty Soviet empire was brought down with nary a single shot fired in protest. If that’s not a good example, then think about how many constitutional breaches have occurred just in the last couple years, perpetuated by our current government, and yet few of us have even raised our voices. I fear that if we were to ever loose our rights, we’ll probably cheer our master for taking them away.
#9 & #7 excellent points. I can’t believe someone else bought up one of my pet peeves: abortion and gun control are the same issue – personal freedom.
IF I could afford it, I would have not only guns, but my own tanks, missiles and nukes.
I think all members of Congress should be required to wear a loaded gun at all times, especially in chambers, during session. Ya think the debates would get a little more civil?
#3 It’s not that i promote violence by nay means David K, but i have 2 wonderful kids and i am very fortunate to have such a beautiful wife. That when i go out for a night on the town, and some @55hole wants to take the place hostage, i hope their shot is as good as mine 🙂
#40
If Mucous gets a nuke I want one too. Maybe if we all arm are selves to the teeth no one will ever die because we will all be afraid the other guy will shoot back.
That’s what we want a world of fear……Oh wait that is the world in which we already live. At least in the U.S. We are a culture of fear. That is why we feel the need to own a gun. I know a lot of people who own guns. I also know a lot of people who don’t. Guess which ones have been shot? That’s right the ones who own guns. BUT it isn’t because they own a gun. It is because of their own fear!
#40 – I think all members of Congress should be required to wear a loaded gun at all times, especially in chambers, during session. Ya think the debates would get a little more civil?
Comment by Mucous — 12/8/2006 @ 5:49 am
Do you really think the debates aren’t civil enough? If anything, I think we need to take a page from British Parliment. Our debates are entirely too civil, when they are even debates at all.
To many watered down, ineffective, namby pamby comprimises. Nothing gets done… everything just gets a little tweaked…
I want my Senator to look across the isle and say, “you sir are a raging jack-ass who is in serious need of an ass-kicking, and you shall most certainly recieve one from me and my constituant OhForTheLoveOf if you actually vote yes on that (insert pet issue here)”
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who believe that the “well regulated Militia” and “the people” referred to in the 2nd Amendment are one and the same. Rather, the two entities (militia and citizens) are being contrasted, the latter representing a counterbalance to the former.
I don’t understand why even some lawyers (like the solicitor general in the article) believe that nestled among a Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom from an oppressive government would be an amendment securing the “right” of militiamen acting in the government’s service to be equipped with guns. That would seem to come under the heading of “painfully obvious,” and surely it couldn’t be the point of the amendment.
Silly lawyer. Let’s hope he doesn’t make judge.
It’s more necessary than ever. You have voting machines that can be rigged, and government agencies with the power to snoop everywhere. Wouldn’t you want there to be a counterbalance?
Interesting attack on the 2nd Admendment. I hope it goes to the Supreme Court, we really should end the debate now. It might be moot since we’re about to become part of NAU, North American Union, with a different governing elite. I’ve read where it’ll be Palimentarian system, that should pretty well kill our rights for good. I don’t know if the budget has gotten big enough to force us into the union, but I’m sure it will.
That whole thing about the 2nd amendment is only referring to militias, it doesn’t even exist in Miller, the case that supposedly created that definition. They didn’t say well the guy’s not part of the National Guard and end the case there. They had to keep going, because everyone is part of the militia. Plus there are numerous other court cases where the 2nd amendment right is referred to as an individual right. Most of these aren’t about gun control, and the right is mention in passing as part of others. For example, an enemy combatant case that talks about if he were treated normally, then he could just say he is exercising his 2nd amendment rights.
What I think is interesting,
Is that the Laws for the poor, are straight forward and debatable.
The Laws for corps tend to be WEIRD.
Such as taxes, and that the MORE you make, the more you get to deduct, and hide. Where the laws for the poor, take Taxes out of our checks, corps hold onto it until they can show they DIDNT make a profit, or that they Hid it Very well.
It has been estimated that If the corps paid 1/2 their taxes, NONE of the poor would need to.
Poor=
#46 – It might be moot since we’re about to become part of NAU, North American Union, with a different governing elite. I’ve read where it’ll be Palimentarian system, that should pretty well kill our rights for good.
I read that article in the November issue of Paranoid Kook Magazine. Wild stuff. Did you catch that review of the new anti-black helicopter home defense system? I gotta get me one of those sweet babies for my mountain compound.
This weekend a man in New Mexico called the police to report a burglar. He ended up shooting and killing the intruder. The cops arrived 10 minutes later. Remove his right to self defense? Don’t even think so. Maybe someday we will be able to own Phasers permanenetly set on stun. Until then let me defend my family, my house and my rights.