Justices to consider gun case Nov. 9
The Supreme Court will consider two petitions growing out of the Second Amendment dispute over a District of Columbia ban on private possession of handguns at its Conference on Nov. 9, according to the Court’s electronic docket on Wednesday.
The two cases are the city’s appeal — District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) — challenging a D.C. Circuit Court ruling last March striking down the handgun ban under the Second Amendment, and a cross-petition by five city residents — Parker v. District of Columbia (07-335) — seeking to join in the case to add their own legal complaints about the city gun control law.
Because the two sides have framed the Second Amendment question in different ways in their papers in 07-290, it is conceivable that, should the Court grant review, it might choose to rephrase the issue itself.
The earliest that an order on the fate of the two cases would emerge is probably Tuesday, Nov. 13. The case, if granted, would probably be heard in February or March.
Out of curiosity, it has always been my reading of the Constitution that the Second Amendment is a restriction solely on the Congress, the regulation of the militia being an enumerated power of Congress under Article One Section Eight, i.e., the Constitution absolutely forbids the states, subsidiary jurisdictions, and the Executive from the matter, and that the reference to the militia in the Second Amendment is to tie the Amendment to the pertinent section. I have always wondered about making an argument on constitutionality without considering the totality of the Constitution.
Comment by Jack Layne — October 24, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
The Fourteenth Amendment was passed for the specific purpose of preventing the states from disarming newly-freed blacks. Read the debates. Or read Holbrook’s book.
Comment by Jeff Dege — October 25, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Jack - I suggest you read the Parker vs. DC district court decision. Justice Silberman discusses this in depth. The synopsis version is that the “tieing” to which you refer is in the prefatory clause, which should not be construed to limit the operative clause in any way. Furthermore, he references the Militia Act of 1792, which requires personal ownership of arms for militia service. Since these were personally owned, it makes little sense to argue that the second amendment applies solely to the militia.
Comment by Matthew Caron — October 25, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Of course, other parts of the bill of rights have been applied to the states via the 14th amendment. But when looking at the Constitution’s sparse clauses relating to the militia, it is worth comparing the Articles of Confederation, which went into great detail about the raising and commanding and federalizing of militias.
Comment by Roger Friedman — October 25, 2007 @ 11:40 am
James Madison originally wanted to insert amendments to the constitution in the section they pertained to. The 2d amendment was to be included in the section with habeas corpus as it was pertaining to an individual right. Section one of the 14th amendment was to make the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. as was stated by congressman Bingham in the congressional record for the 39th congress.
It is also clear from the writings of the founding fathers that “nothing in this constitution could be construed, as to disarm the people”.
Comment by kenneth Hill — October 25, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
As a Jewess in the US, I say it is time we ALL put our 2nd Amendment FIRST! We must halt the liberal litany of lies flooding from the mighty media monolith!
Comment by Wendy Weinbaum — October 25, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Note that the First Amendment, specifically, says “CONGRESS shall make no law…”. The Second doesn’t say anything about by whom the right shall not be infringed. Absent any qualifiers, that would mean “Shall not be infringed by anybody, period, that’s it”.
With regard to the militia clause, it would be translated nowadays as, “Because a properly functioning militia is necessary to the security of a free state…”. The Second Amendment is an edit from Article I, Sec 13 of the Virginia Constitution:
“Sec. 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Bottom line, the Second applies all the way down to the city government of Speed Trap, Alabama — Not just the feds.
Comment by Dexter Guptill — October 25, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Let me throw a bone to the crowd (including misinformed judges) that always quote the 1939 case of U.S. v Miller to back up their gun-ban arguments:
1 Only the Government argued their case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Miller case. There was no respondent in the Supreme Court case because “Miller” either split, or died. It was a one-sided argument before the judges.
2 None of the justices ever served in the military, so they had no idea of the types of weaponry used in the most recent conflict –– WW-I. In this case, a short-barreled-shotgun –– commonly called a “trench-gun” never entered into evidence in the Miller case. So the justices throughout the appeals process could not assume facts not in evidence. Hence, “a sawed-off-shotgun was not in the ‘judicial notice’ of this court as being a firearm used by ‘a well regulated militia’… (Paraphrased)” the keyword is “judicial notice.”
3 Had defense council been able to argue the case and produce evidence that “trench-guns” were common military/militia weapons, the “Miller case” would likely tilted in the opposite direction.
Hopefully the new Supreme Court will be able to see through the lying façade that has been put up by the ilk’s of Sarah Brady, Michael Beard, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and the rest of their ignominious pandering, parroting parakeets in the National-Lap-Dog-Media.
Frank Castle,
St. Louis MO
Comment by frank t.p. castle — October 25, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
I believe that a militia is as important today as it was tow hundred years ago. The last I heard,the total amount of military personnel is two million in the U.S.Some are paper shufflers and pen pushers The rest are scattered around the world and various parts of the United States. Should a land invasion take place,able bodied men and women would be needed to take up arms against any such threat.The Second Amendment aside;we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves against any threat with equal or greater force.Self defense is permitted in the New Testament in Luke22:36.
Comment by Jon D. Eager — October 25, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
“Bottom line, the Second applies all the way down to the city government of Speed Trap, Alabama — Not just the feds.”
Right, which is why this case is so important.
Comment by Sean Flynn — October 25, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
If you read the preamble of the Second Amendment as a limiting the right to bear arms only to militias, then you should read the preamble of the copyright clause as limiting copyrights to those works that promote “science” (i.e., knowledge). That would invalidate all the copyrights on stuff that does not promote science. I wonder how much the liberals in Hollywood would like that!!!
Comment by Robert Hilton — October 25, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Comment #9 states that “if a land invasion takes place” We do have a land invasion and the federal response has been negligable at best and criminally irrisponsible at worst. “We the People”
have been so dumb downed that we do not or unwilling to force the federals to respond to stop the invasion. More than 75% of the American people are against this hoard invading us and yet we won’t get off our knees to either force the feds to stop it and enforce out immigration laws or use the power we own from the Constitution to run the invaders out, using force if neccessary.
The feds are the enemy and the feds are the republicans and the democrats.
The 2nd amensdment is exactly for this type of situation. Put several million people waving rifles in Washington at the Congress and I guarantee they will get the message Ten million would be better and 20 million better yet. I am not espousing inserection. I am recomending letting them know we have had it with their incompetent corruption.41 democratic Sennators voted to grant amnesty to millios of illegals yesterday and several republicans. They need to be held accountable for this direct slap in the face to “We the People”.
Comment by Peter Courtenay Stephens — October 25, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I like Wendy Weinbaum’s comment, and I second it wholeheartedly. Way to go, Wendy!
Comment by Allen Lough — October 25, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
I would have to very strongly agree with Wendy, Frank and Jon in their comments, only moreso than the others. We all appear to be in agreement that we must preserve this right as it is granted. Can’t let the “ilks” of Sarah Brady and others cloud the judgement of the court.
Mike
Comment by Mike Comstock — October 25, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
As a reasonable person, I have to ask why the Framers would waste one of only 10 of the bill of rights to guarantee that the army can be armed. That arguement is ridiculous. The phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment is exactly the same “People” as in the Preamble, and the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. To argue otherwise is to reinvent history.
Comment by Rusty Shackleford — October 25, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
I hope that the Supremes see it for what it is, a gun grabbing scheme by the leftist powers to disarm the people of the United States!
Every society that has disarmed it members, has befallen on terrible calamity somewhere further down the historical time line! Millions of unarmed souls forced to their deaths like so many animals to slaughter!
Think of the Nazis and the Communits and their terrible atrocities against their own countrymen who dared to oppose them!
Comment by William G Martin — October 25, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Citizens of the United States and the people who made this document for us,have long sense lost sight of the very essence of this document. It was written and affirmed,that we are to live by and govern all. To read into this document something that elimiinates “The rights of the People.” will fail and fall under its own weight.
I will revel and wrap my self in this document and the flag,even if it costs my very life. It has given and i shall give back.
Comment by Mr. Elmo C Sherman — October 25, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
If I read the calendar right the Court will not hear this case until after the 2008 Presidential and congressional election. This leaves the gun control debate, and by extension the way candidates interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, in play for the entire election.
Pay attention to what they say
Comment by Albert X. Perez — October 25, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
If every other amendment to the Constitution applies to all individual Americans, how could the Second Amendment not apply to all individual Americans?
Comment by Mark Brummitt — October 25, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
A well-ordered militia needs well-trained fighting dogs. Free Mike Vick!!
Comment by Roger Friedman — October 25, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
I FIND IT HARD TO BELEIVE THAT SO MANY OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE CAN SIMPLY MISS THE POINT THAT ARTICLE II, OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, IS AN INDIVIDUALLY WEILDED CIVIL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. AS SUCH, ARTICLE II SIMPLY ENUMERATES A PERSONAL CIVIL RIGHT THAT PRE-EXISTED THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER CIVIL RIGHT SO ENUMERATED WITHIN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND SO, WE SHOULD INSIST THAT IT BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT EXERCISED AT THE DISCRETION OF EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN OF THIS NATION.
IT IS NO CLICHE TO STATE THAT FIREARMS ARE LIBERTYS TEETH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.
Comment by Charles Adams — October 25, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
this is long overdue, when the decision is announced, the Union will be saved.
Comment by michael raleigh — October 26, 2007 @ 1:52 am
I’ve been following this case closely and I’ll have to go with the very supported conclusion drawn here:
2nd analysis/Parker
Incidently, for those commentators on the 14th amendment I would suggest visiting here for a eye opening historical perspective of the amendment, especially Bingham’s House Report #22 of 1871.
Comment by George Hines — October 26, 2007 @ 7:13 am
The language is simple and the intent is clear; this is why it’s been labelled “The Inconvenient Second Amendment” by the more honest of liberals.
Comment by Robert Chafin — October 26, 2007 @ 8:51 am
The nominative absolute, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is a misunderstood grammatical construct. It’s not connected, grammatically to the rest of the Amendment. In short, its use here is to express TWO meanings. The Founders were excellent communicators. They knew how to pack meanings into a short phrase.
In this case, BECAUSE expresses one meaning, as in “Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary…”. This satisfies the Brady Bunch. But ALTHOUGH expresses the other meaning, as in “Although a well-regulated is necessary…”. This satisfies the NRA.
What the founders were looking for was “A Balance of Power”.
The Militia has the right to arms in order to repel invasion from within and without. The People have a right to arms in order to repel usurpation of power from a corrupt Federal instrument. The nominative absolute allows this to happen.
Comment by Spencer R. Rackley IV — October 26, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Building off of comment #8, Miller could not afford an attorney so his side of the argument was never presented to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Government only presented their side. The Justices also never made a decision about the Constitutionality of a sawed-off shotgun. They simply sent the case back to the lower courts to decide.
Comment by Dave Falletta — October 26, 2007 @ 10:26 am
The second amendment is clear and is what it is, it says that citizens have a right to possess and carry a firearm. In this day and age ALL Americans should be packing heat, who knows when the next terrorist attack will be? The Miller case affirmed that civilians have a right to own military or military style weapons(including machine guns.) I strongly urge SCOTUS to take up this case. I’m tired of not being allowed to carry a handgun on my person openly or secretly without facing time in the slammer (Illinois disarms it’s citizens as it is a felony to carry protection openly or secretly.) I believe it is time to get rid of ALL gun-control laws as all they will ever bring us is a disarmed public and more death. The NFA Act of 1934 and Gun-control Act of 1968 should be repelled, as they are bad law. I also want to see the Hughes Amendment repelled. Don’t blow it this time guys, we CANNOT and WILL NOT allow for another hundred years of silence from the Supreme Court on this issue.
Comment by Andy Bohan — October 26, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
The Bill of Rights was drawn to protect the people
against a government becoming despotic. Government
has no rights but has just powers given to it by
“The People”. Only citizens have rights (not
government) therefore all ten articles within the
Bill of Rights were meant for “The People”.
And the 2nd amentment is just like all the other
nine. It written for “The People”, not for the
benefit of the government. The Declaration of
Independence is useless without the 2nd amendment.
Comment by Charles O'Laughlin — October 26, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
I wonder how many people today actually think through the whole finding in the old 1932 Miller case. If I were a gun-control advocate, I’d be very careful about citing a case that found a law against short-barreled shotguns legal solely because they aren’t used by the military. Exactly the same reasoning, simply looking at the obverse side, clearly holds that fully automatic assault rifles, CANNOT be prohibited, because they are precisely what the military routinely carries. Under this rationale, it seems to me, the 1934 acts that prevent owning fully automatic firearms (or at least levy a heavy tax, clearly an “infringement” of the right to bear them), are unconstitutional, as is any type of “assault weapon ban.”
Comment by Geoffrey Meade — October 26, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
I could not agree more with Peter’s comment about marching on the capital grounds and giving our elected officals a reason to consider us. We NEED to get the attention of these people and remove those who have failed to uphold their oath. Peter I am ready to march with you!
Comment by Terence Bergin — October 26, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
The left can read the first clause as a limitation on the second clause if they wish. It makes no moment. In fact, it actually broadens the second clause. At the time of the amendment, “militia” = armed populace. So there. “An armed populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Dexter Guptill wrote:
Note that the First Amendment, specifically, says “CONGRESS shall make no law…”. The Second doesn’t say anything about by whom the right shall not be infringed. Absent any qualifiers, that would mean “Shall not be infringed by anybody, period, that’s it”.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAH!
Comment by Wayne Jacobs — October 26, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Two points have not been made. (a) According to the language in the 2nd Amendment, the right to arms is inherent to us, and independent of government. That is why the Amendment says “…shall not be infringed.”
(2) Well regulated does not have to mean imposing restrictions. Too often we think of it in that sense. A well regulated business for example, would be one that is highly efficient and therefore profitable.
Comment by John Locke — October 26, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Perhaps the anti-rights Leftists can produce an argument by one of the Founding Fathers that advances the idea that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. I’ve never found any statements by Founders except those that assert that the Second is an individual right, but I’ll give the Left the chance to admit their anti-constitution agenda is based upon intentional deception and lies.
And in the early days of the American Republic those men marshaled for militia duty would be provided a weapon if they did not own their own firearm. Kind of silly to proclaim today that citizens have lost the same constitutional Second right somewhere along the line without anyone reading or hearing about it, right?
Stalin and Hitler were two who argued for confiscation of the individual’s means to defend basic human rights; they succeeded and achieved their goal of obliterating all opposition to their tyranny. The worldwide Left has the same goal in mind for America, using the mainstream media to propagandize for court-mandated oppression. The truth is that the only way the individual’s right to own and possess a firearm in America can be denied is through a national referendum. None of the Leftist anti-rights groups has dared advance this constitutional method because they know it will fail miserably; hence their entire reliance on propaganda and “judge shopping”.
Comment by Steve Parker — October 26, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
I wonder if the Court will want to make the ruling that most of the previous posters want. I know that the justices are more conservative now, but there’s a big difference between candidates that pander to the 2nd Amendment fans and unelected Supreme Court Justices that serve for life. I think that, rather than opening a huge can of worms, the Court will accept just enough of the “States’ Rights” side of the arguments to rule that, “The 2nd Amendment concerns the people, the states and state militias. In DC, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction and the amendment does not apply. Convictions upheld.”
Comment by Lee Stoller — October 26, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
The Second Amendment was put together by people who had suffered under appressive governments in Europe and elseware. These Autors of Freedom were very precise in their wording of this Document.
An armed citizen is that,people who are denied this right are Subjects!
Comment by Sheldon Terry Finkelstein — October 26, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
If the Supreme Court ruled, “The 2nd Amendment concerns the people, the states and state militias. In DC, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction and the amendment does not apply.Convictions upheld” it would make a mockery of the United Stated Constitution.
The right to vote in federal elections is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution but deemed such an essential right that no state today would attempt to deny any citizen the right to vote in national elections, save for those states that deny felons that right.
By the same token, any Court that ruled a constitutional right embodied in the US Constitution could be infringed in the manner that DC has infringed may as well admit that states have the right to reinstate Jim Crow laws that infringe upon certain groups of citizens.
Comment by Steve Parker — October 27, 2007 @ 12:20 am
The decision by the Supremes in this case will live in infamy. Like the campaign finance reform law (what part of congress shall make no law don’t you understand), there have been few real consitutional questions before the court recently. If they were really doing their jobs they would be sending most of their cases back to the state courts where they belong. Anyway, it is amazing to me how many alleged learned folks all of sudden become idiots because of their political beliefs. When they are asked why the 2nd amendment would be within the bill of rights that is dedicated to the “PEOPLE”, if it has to do with state rights. There is absolutely no response. As americans the one thing we should all stand together on at the very least is the simple meaning and language of the Constitution. In addition we are fortunate to have reference documents (federalist papers, etc,)available to guide us if there is disagreement in regards to intent or meaning. The only litmus test i would have for federal and supreme court justices is: can you read and understand this document?
Comment by Orville Roache — October 27, 2007 @ 12:59 am
In regards to US v. Miller, Mr. Miller apparantly passed away in 1938. This was unknown at the time the USSC heard the case. With this being said, one must wonder how the court could rule when the defendant had no representation in court.
Secondly, if the USSC does by chance find for DC against Heller, this eliminates any chance that DC will ever get voting rights based upon the city’s argument in court.
I can’t believe for an instant that the USSC will find for DC after reading both the appeal by the city and the well written and comprehensive decision by the lower court. DC’s argument is lacking severely in legal precedence and it is based almost solely on emotion and fear.
Given that both parties have asked for a hearing and specifically asked for the USSC to “define” the 2nd, I believe and hope that they will incorporate it and rule broadly so that the issue will be removed from the political spectrum as it doesn’t belong there to begin with.
Mike
Comment by Michael Saranos — October 27, 2007 @ 1:21 am
The right to bear arms has several facets to its justification.
Even before perusing the US Constitution, there is a natural right to individual defense of self or others which is not dependent upon any document written by man. Weaponry, being integral to defense, is a necessary part of this natural right. The beasts of the field bear fangs and claws. Being endowed more with brains and less with brawn, man makes the tools for his defense and bears those.
Now, turning to the US Constitution, the very first thing to note is that the rights in the Bill of Rights aren’t a list of all of your rights you are entitled to and you have no more than that. Quite the contrary. The Bill of Rights simply affirms and discusses some of your innumerable rights, but you still retain all of the rest of your innumerable individual rights nonetheless. Amendment IX clarifies that distinctly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” You have a natural right to individual defense of self or others and the tools of necessity for it. You retain it. It is not denied or disparaged. So affirms the Constitution of the US.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. While liberty and property that are taken illegally (without due process of law) may be regained by means other than physical individual defense, the thing that many times protects life from being illegally deprived, by criminals or otherwise, is physical individual defense. This amendment affirms that my life may only be taken legally. Therefore, I have the right to defend my life from illegal attempts to deprive me of it, with such tools as are necessary for such defense.
The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as “The Bill of Rights”. The phrase “the people” in it means the same thing as “the people” means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as “the United States”, “the states”, and “the people”.
Comment by Dan Meadows — October 27, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
George Constitutional Scholar, Akhil Amar,
has already stated the 2nd Amendment should
be incorporated under the 14th Amendment.
He is the World’s preeminent
expert on the 14th Amendment.
I surely think he might know
what he is talking about.
Best,
Marc
Comment by Marcus Poulin — October 28, 2007 @ 8:09 am
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
Comment by LeDoyle Pingel — October 28, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
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.
Comment by Roy Berkeley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
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!
Comment by Jeffery Haman — October 30, 2007 @ 6:21 am
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!
Comment by John Saunders — October 30, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
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.
Comment by Harry Schell — October 30, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
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.
Comment by Angel Shamaya — November 3, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
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,
Comment by Harry Christensen — November 10, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
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…..
Comment by Vince Warde — November 10, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
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..
Comment by Stephen McGregor — November 29, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
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!
Comment by Wendy Weinbaum — April 14, 2008 @ 1:45 pm