 |
|
We find ourselves at this poignant moment – a gun rights showdown during an election year – thanks to a fellow named Richard Heller, who so far has successfully challenged the District of Columbia’s broad gun control regulations. Heller, a security guard, wants the right to take his firearm home with him after a long day at the office. DC currently bans the possession of firearms-as well as other restrictions upon gun possession – as part of an effort to curtail the District’s high gun violence rate.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that DC’s ban is an unconstitutional infringement upon an individual (not collective, militia-y) right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. So, for gun rights advocates, the Parade of Horribles unfolds this way: the Justices find a way uphold and thus strengthen DC’s ban, which prompts gun control advocates to push for similar ordinances and legislation across the nation. Pretty soon, the fear goes, every jurisdiction prohibits the possession of firearms in the home.Gun control advocates offer their own dire forecast. In their worst fears, the Supreme Court strikes down the DC ban using a legal standard that opens the door to subsequent challenges to gun control regulations all over the country. Pretty soon, there are no federal gun restrictions and those on the state level are legally dubious. Pretty soon, this fear goes, everyone is packing everywhere. This is the drama the Supreme Court gets-and deserves-for not addressing the merits of the Second Amendment since 1939.
No kidding. And opportunism will rule.
arms??? and you want little pip-squeak guns??? i want to carry around a tatical nuclear missile… dammit! it is my right…
#30 The problem is that SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be writing laws. If you beleive that the majority of Americans would like to see a complete ban on handguns or on any other type of firearm then the Constitution is pretty clear on the process. See Artcle V.
#33 All SCOTUS needs to do is define “the people”, for those that are mentally impaired that is.
#16
> Only an activist court would apply the
> constitution to anything but barrel loaded
> muskets–that sort of thing.
I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. Individuals then and now are for example permitted to own other types of “arms” such as cannons. Furthermore, I see nothing in the 2nd Amendment nor anything in further articles written by the Founding Fathers that implied that “arms” only meant muskets. Even a strict constructionist can logically conclude that “arms” should include handguns.
#30
> I also believe that a majority of American
> citizens would like to see handguns
> stopped being
> manufactured in this country to stem the
> existence of inner city gun violence.
IMHO, you would be wrong. Yes, most Americas want inner city violence to stop. However, there is much disagreement over how to accomplish that goal and a substantial number of people would adamantly disagree that disarming the populace is even close to the right solution.
#31 Rifles aren’t mobile? You haven’t seen No Country for Old Men?
#33 I did not give the Judicial Branch the power to legislate, but SCOTUS does have the real world affect through their interpretation and decisions of grievances brought before them.
Arms are okay, let’s just ban triggers.
#29 – OhForTheLoveOf – I didn’t mean you.
Oh…
Well…
Okay…
(walks away sheepishly and sits down)
Wow, an AR-16, WTF.
The only thing this ruling should affect is federal territories and possibly a limitation of federal regulation in the States. In other words it will probably limit the ATF to a role outside of States. The federal government has over reached it’s authority with regard to the States and it will be interesting to see the opinions of the Justices regarding that.
It is interesting that federalist like Adams thought that the federal government would never be stronger than the individual States and that there was no need for a 2nd Amendment or Bill of Rights. I guess the anti-federalists were right for demanding a Bill of Rights.
Also, the framers intentioned that all able bodied men were part of their State Militia and that each had a right to bear as many arms as he could afford. So, a limitation on weapons is NOT what the forefathers intended. Machine guns, however inefficient, should not be denied the citizens. In fact you should be able to buy an M1 tank if you could afford it.
The federal government has tried things like the Militia Act of 1903 which obfuscates what a State Militia is and is the reason many of you don’t know your true responsibilities as a Citizen of your State and the United States.
#37 As long as you keep typing 😉
A very smart man once said, “A polite society is an armed society”.
#16
> Only an activist court would apply the
> constitution to anything but barrel loaded
> muskets–that sort of thing.
As long as the first only applies to quill pens and Gutenburg presses.
My Favorite:
“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.” I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.
— Bruce Tiemann
Look folks, this Supremes Court is the same singing group that appointed Monkey Boy into the White House. What has Bushco, Inc. done in their 7+ years in the business of gubment? What have they done for WE THE PEOPLE? Remember when Dumbya said, back before he got selected, at that fundraiser, “You’re my people, the haves, and the have mores.” Remember when he said that it would be good if King George was dictator. Now they quickly dole out 200 BILLION of our tax dollars to big banks so that these billionaires can keep their Maseratis, while me and you have to wait for a lousy $300.
If you think that this Supremes Court (a subsidiary of Bushco, Inc.) is going to rule with WE THE PEOPLE, you are truly an Egyptian, living in Da Nile. Do you think that they want to see mass assassinations in the streets in DC? If they make concealable guns legal in DC, who do you want to bet is the first politician shot?
Don’t fool yourself into believing that ANY of these bass turds is for WE THE PEOPLE. They are a corporate entity, who is only concerned with giving the corporations more welfare, on the backs of me and you, the taxpayers!
>>A very smart man once said,
>>“A polite society is an armed society”.
I am not sure how smart Heinlen was, but its a good saying.
Rabble Rouser,
do you really think making guns illegal in DC will stop any assasin?
Criminals do not obey the law. That is thier job description. Laws such as the one in DC only affect law abiding people, the ones who won’t be committing crimes in the first place.
I’m not at all hopeful. This is why the conservatives want so bad to stack the Supreme Court.
The only question is… are tactical nukes constitutionally protected arms?
#41 – As long as the first only applies to quill pens and Gutenburg presses.
The idiots who spout the “muskets only” argument can never answer this question. Because, they know it will reveal their hypocrisy.
#38 – many of you don’t know your true responsibilities as a Citizen of your State and the United States.
Oh please… enlighten us.
#44 – Criminals do not obey the law. That is thier job description.
Finally!
Someone is finally admitting that being a criminal is a job.
And, it’s an important job at that.
What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” don’t you liberals understand?!
I say keep the ban. DC is under Congress’ control, and I think a gun ban there is valid, that wouldn’t be valid in any state, like keeping gunsout of the White House.
#49 – Stop being a doofus. There are plenty of pro-gun liberals. Quit getting your worldview from Fox.
“Militia” means the people in a village or tribe able to fight in defence of the village or tribe. (It did not include women or girls because the women and girls were part of the loot the men were fighting over.)
The Constitution addresses the issuance of “Letters of Marquee and Reprisal”, or a privateering permit. A civilian ship, owned and manned by civilians (some not citizens), armed with cannon and any other weapon the ship owner and crew can get their hands on. So, there is an assumption that civilians can own any sort of weapon they want to get.
Again, prior to 1968, most of the gun laws passed in 1934 and 1938 were not enforced, and people were able to freely purchase machine guns, howitzers, fighter planes with machine guns mounted, and fully armed tanks. Where was all the criminal violence feared by the pansies today?
What I find strange is the (apparent) acceptance of the erosion of civil liberties over the past 7 years by the American people (Dems and Reps alike) while this issue is still so contentious.
While I’ve never met an individual American I didn’t like, as a group, you guys are scary.
Sad it is, indeed, that I used to think “Peace Now” … currently, it’s “Peace Soon”.
OhForTheLoveOf
Oh please… enlighten us.
I’m just doing my part.
I have a friend who lives in Washington, DC. Owns a legally registered shotgun I know of; perhaps some rifles since he’s a hunter. If you’re going to own a firearm for protection, I’d go with something you don’t have to aim (the shotgun). The DC ban is on handguns.
Which might give the SCOTUS a narrowly-defined way out that will avoid answering the Big Question.
#54 – No seriously…
As a citizen, what is “my responsibility”?
As citizenship is an accident of birth, I’m interested to know what is expected of me.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights states:
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.
Quoted on C-SPAN this afternoon by Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier
“I think the reasonableness standard of the handgun laws in the District, which are not completely banned, because there is licensed handguns in the District of Columbia for law enforcement, retired law enforcement, federal law enforcement, security agencies. So, there is not a complete ban on handguns.”
My interpretation of her statement:
DC does not completely ban handguns because police + security companies are allowed to have guns.
So the police and security companies will be the well regulated militia our founding fathers envisioned?
I don’t think so!
#38, “The only thing this ruling should affect is federal territories and possibly a limitation of federal regulation in the States. In other words it will probably limit the ATF to a role outside of States.”
While that is the original construction of the Constitution, it is no longer true since the passage of the 14th Amendment.
“Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If the United States is prohibited from restricting the private ownership of guns, the 14th Amendment also transfers that prohibition to the states. This is the exact same reason why since the 14th Amendment, states are now strictly bound by the first amendment as well.
I might as well point out as an aging hippy peacenik that the men who founded this country clearly believed in the right to bear canon, as I pointed out in my blog posting, “In Concord, Cannon Law“, which was part 4 of my “In Concord” series, published in among other venues that bastion of conservative thought, the Daily Kos.
Brons
Vox Libertas
#38
Sadly yes. The federalists were philosophically correct that you don’t need protection against powers the government doesn’t has, but the anti-federalists were practically correct in knowing that the government will always attempt to claim new powers, no matter how illegitimate. As the Hamilton quote from Federalist No. 84 I posted above suggests, the Bill of Rights and the further explicit naming of rights only serves to hasten the power grab because it implies the existence of powers, regardless if there were actually ever granted or not.
#53 – “/t.”, Our rights have been eroding ever since Abraham Lincoln was elected.
“Peace Now”?
Ever hear that bit about “What if they gave a war and no one came”? The people using that as a “peace” slogan left off the next line:
“Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came?
Why then, the war would come to you!”
I like another quote from Bertolt Brecht:
“Those who take the most from the table, teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined, demand sacrifice. Those
who eat their fill, speak to the hungry, of wonderful times to
come. Those who lead the country into the abyss, call ruling
difficult, for ordinary folk.”