Comments on: Justices to consider gun case Nov. 9

By: Wendy Weinbaum

Wendy Weinbaum — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:45:13 +0000

As a Jewess in the US, let me remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!

By: Stephen McGregor

Stephen McGregor — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:57:25 +0000

Per Noah Webster:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The Supreme Power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Citizens or Subjects, that is what this boils down to.

Patrick Henry:

The Militia sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it… The great object is that every man be armed… Everyone who is able may have a gun.

This says it all..

By: Vince Warde

Vince Warde — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:34:54 +0000

No matter which way this comes down, it will be historic – and if it comes down against the personal rights interpretation, the Pro-gun organizations will become more powerful than ever before.

Should such a ruling come down before the election, the Democratic nominee won’t have a chance. 49% of households own guns and they want their right to own them to be protected. Money and votes will surge to the Republican side.

Even if it comes down after the election, there will be a strong grass-roots movement to protect gun rights by amending the Constitution. This will makes things very difficult for the dems in the next presidential election. Remember that 38 states have passed some form of “must issue” concealed carry permits. That’s over 3/4 of the states – if a reasonable amendment gets out of Washington, it will pass.

If the ruling goes the other way, there is zero chance of changing it by amendment. IF the case is heard, it’s a no lose for conservatives…..

By: Harry Christensen

Harry Christensen — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:43:24 +0000

There was a post that referenced the phrase, “the people” as indicative of “the individual” and not “the collective”. I agree, wholeheartedly. One can find Rehnquist speaking at length on this very subject and phrase in a case out of 1990 (as memory serves) US v. Verdugo-Urquidez,, a 4th amendment case.
Second, imagine the power of 60 million gun-owners in the light of Lee Boyd Malveaux, et.al.
Thus the power of the 2nd amendment as an “individual” right.
Thanks for a wonderful set of posts. Issues listed which I hadn’t considered.
p.s. after 70 years with “Miller” as the touchstone, it’s about time the SCOTUS stops ducking this issue and settle something.
Cordially,

By: Angel Shamaya

Angel Shamaya — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:18:00 +0000

The chance of the Court hearing this case and deciding it directly and completely and correctly is slim. At best we’ll be left with ‘reasonable restrictions’ and leave it to the States to define them as liberally as they please. A liberal Court can later define ‘reasonable’ for us several years later — just after a few more conveniently-timed high profile public shootings.

More likely, they won’t even hear the case.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the so-called ‘Justice’ System, optimism is counter-intuitive. Having faith that the ‘Supreme’ Court will truly do the right thing is a setup for disappointment. There aren’t 5 true American patriots on that Court, let alone 9.

That being said, it’s nice to dream about fairy tales that America’s Constitution will one day mean something.

By: Harry Schell

Harry Schell — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:53:59 +0000

I think there are two things missing in many comments above. One is covered IIRC in the majority decision of Parker. The other arises from the nature of the Constitution and BoR as documents of organization for a free republic.

The first item is the right to own a gun or firearm, and it is, why own a gun?

The answer is the Founders believed every soul has an inalienable right to effective self-defense. Such a right starts at the individual level, but comprehends an alliance of souls defending themselves (the militia).

Then as now, a firearm is the best means to this end. The words “arms”, “keep” and “bear” are terms of art in law and phlosophy about effective self-defense as a core freedom/right long before 2A or the broad personal use of firearms.

2A therefore is not about guns but about a human right essential to freedom: you have no rights when oppressed by superior force other than what that force will allow you. If that force can be turned back or neutralized, the only way for it to affect you is with your consent. This is a civilizing concept. The alternative is simply jungle law.

When firearms are obsolete, the concept of a human right to effective self-defense will still be vital to a free society.

My second point comes out of John Edwards’ recent fakery regarding the “2A rights of hunters”. IMO, Edwards does not understand or want to recognize that the Constitution and BoR are an allocation of poltical powers.

Hunting is not a political power or issue on par with self-defense. Hunting was not under consideration by the Founders, especially given the fight they had just won to earn this country’s freedom, in writing a political blueprint of the future.

Edwards’ tactic here is to make firearm possession a question of sports, and further limit it accordingly, while appearing to the less-informed as a “gun-rights” supporter.

My $.02.

By: John Saunders

John Saunders — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:19:01 +0000

There are some good comments in these contributions, though I’m at a loss to explain why the conservatives use this issue as a springboard for left-bashing (which isn’t at all helpful, but feel free). In any event, there are good historical arguments to be made on both sides: The founders saw an armed population of freemen (white males, aka militia) as a check on a tyrannical federal gov’t. (Hence their distrust of a standing Army). Later, the drafters of the 14th Amendment sought to turn the 2d Amendment against the States, which had generally barred freed blacks from owning arms. So we acknowledge the 2d recognizes a fundamental individual right; the stage is set for applying standard constitutional review: Can the DC government’s need to narrow this right survive strict review? The Supreme Court has divined limitations on many of the other rights set out in the bill of rights. Textually, there’s nothing in the 2d that makes it any more sacrosanct than the 1st or the 4th (except that it deals with guns). Tally ho!

By: Jeffery Haman

Jeffery Haman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:21:52 +0000

If read correctly the Second Amendment has two parts. Part one allows for the militia, which is every able bodied man,to protect country,state,county,city,town and self.Part two allows for the keeping and bearing of those arms and that this was to never be allowed to be infringed upon.The meanings are easily found to be historicaly factual by anyone who understands the english language!

By: Roy Berkeley

Roy Berkeley — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:22:58 +0000

As someone once said (I do not remember who said it, but I cannot claim credit for it): the Second Amendment is about the National Guard exactly as the First Amendment is about the Government Printing Office.
IOW, it is absurd to clain that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill Of Rights that grants a specific power solely to the government.
If the Second Amendment iks seen as describing an individually-held right (as I hope the Court will see it) then the extent and nature of “reasonable restrictions” that may be placed on the exercise of that right by individuals would seem to closely circumscribed — at least, IMO.

By: LeDoyle Pingel

LeDoyle Pingel — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:20:23 +0000

The second amendment relates to right of self defense, either as organized militia or individuals. Note that militia here is not limited to a government organization, merely well regulated. We may very soon find first hand what the founding fathers intended. 1 in 15 people in this country is here illegally. Per capita there are more Mexicans here than Americans in Iraq. Mexican gangs in LA region have demonstrated organized violence and ethnic cleansing. The failure of the federal government to address the problem leaves it up to states. Since National Guard units have been diverted by the federal government we the people are left on our own. We are left with overwhelmed police and armed citizens. Well regulated militia, not vigilantes, is exactly what will be needed, as the founders intended. The recession will bring citizens and illegals into conflict over jobs and services, resulting in civil conflict (war?). Here are links to document the statements above:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-gangs17oct17,1,4360151.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G6U2KO8&show_article=1