Comments on: Preview: The Second Amendment case

By: Jill A. Cabarle

Jill A. Cabarle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:08:13 +0000

I think it is obvious that there is a necessary need for the Suprem Court to take a judicial standing on the Second Amendment. That is not only to aid in the understanding of each individual case the lower courts are faced with but also as a right the people should be entitled to (knowing a clear-cut defintion of the amendment).
According to the article, all other courts have taken a stab at interpretating the Amendment, only one which found it to be a right inclusive of serving in a militia. I can understand the argument for each state being able to clarify it’s own laws, esecially when DC felt that handguns were used by rampant criminals and were the cause of numerous child deaths. However, this is a part of the Constitution and does DC have the right to define it’s own laws or interpretation of them outside of that? Will and do all other states have the same consideration? I am all for each state implementing it’s own laws but this is much, much bigger than a “common” issue to be decided on. When dealing with something as large as an amendment to the Constitution, I do not believe there should be so much room left open for each state and individual to argue a different side of the law; which is inevitable with each court ruling. The Supreme Court really needs to take a stance on this issue or I do not feel there will EVER be resolution in the future.

By: Eric Rutsky

Eric Rutsky — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:07:12 +0000

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment gives every law abiding citizen the right to own and bear arms. The debate over the word “militia” may seem like very ambiguous to some as it is to me. The founding fathers never wanted the “people” of the United States to be unarmed, in case of any attacks from within or from foreign countries. So in my opinion, the law abiding citizens of the United States should be able to own guns, thanks to the 2nd amendment. I also believe that the kind of guns sold to the public should be regulated. I do not believe that their is any reason to own machine guns, semi-automatic nor automatic. When it comes to Heller and his case in Washington D.C., I believe he has the right to own a gun and feel that it is unconstitutional for him not to have that right.

By: Michael Butler

Michael Butler — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:59:38 +0000

I must continue by saying that people have a right to bear arms as a means of defense. The framers of the constitution kept in mind that the fact not all governments are perfect and that long after they are gone this one might not stay the way that they had envisioned.
The people were given the right to bear arms as a way to keep the government honest and to prevent it from straying into tyranny.

By: Michael Butler

Michael Butler — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:54:56 +0000

After reading the facts surrounding the case involving Heller and the District of Columbia i believe that i would have to agree with Heller and his argument that individuals do have the right to keep and bear arms. I find it disturbing that the D.C. would require that its citizens to dismantle or lock up their arms, at which point the weapon becomes a mere paper weight.

By: Abner Laurent

Abner Laurent — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:47:45 +0000

In regards to the future decisions of the Court involving District of Colombia v. Heller and the meaning of the Second Amendment, I believe the court will interpret it as an individual right to bear arms. Regarding District of Colombia v. Heller, I do not believe the Court will overturn the possession of firearms ban because of the “standing” issue. Another reason I do not believe the Court will overturn the ban is because it will side for a reasonable restriction of handguns and it may find the ban as a reasonable restriction. ACRU presents a valid point that according to “standing” issue, one should not have to break the law to test the constitutionality of the firearm ban. On the other hand, the ban does allow you to possess firearms and shotguns, except it must remain at home and disfuctional. As I stated earlier, I believe the Court will side for restrictions on the possession of firearms.
When I peruse through the first line of the Second Amendment, I find an important word “regulated” which comes before “militia”. If militia includes “the people” and the “right of the people” which is found in the Second Amendment, then a “well regulated militia” under a Free State can be a well regulated people under a Free State (people’s rights to bear arms or firearms). This is why I believe the Court will not overturn the “standing” issue, and interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear “arms”.

By: Christa Cavolin

Christa Cavolin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:45:44 +0000

“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 to be infringed.”

It is our fundamental right as a citizen of the United States to be able to own and carry a gun.
It is our right to be able to provide ourselves with our own means of self-defense.

I believe the Framers purpose of the Second Amendment is not to enforce governmental interest in the regulation of a citizen’s right to gun possession. Instead, their purpose is to ensure that by owning or caring a firearm we are fulfilling our divine right to defend ourselves. For example, the Framers of the Second Amendment use the word Militia. The Militia the Founding Fathers are referring to is composed of regular citizens trained to defend themselves and their country. These citizens are not militarily trained solders that the government provides for the nation; they are civilians. Additionally, when the Amendment was written, the purpose was to provide citizens with the right to defend themselves in times of threat. With the safety of the citizens in mind, the Founding Fathers stated that individuals who were a part of the regulated Militia had the right to keep and bear Arms. Today our nation has well regulated Armed Forces with no need for a Militia. However I do not believe that this should infringe on our right as civilians to carry and possess a firearm.

Also when the Second Amendment was written the Founders wanted to limit government control. They did this by promising citizens that the government could not deny individual firearms. One reason for this limitation was to prevent the government from becoming a Tyranny and having complete control of the people. Today if the government denies citizens the right to defend themselves by means of legally owning a firearm, then they are strictly going against our Founding Fathers intentions in regards to the Second Amendment.

Additionally, the second amendment states “shall not to be infringed.” I agree with Carl Donath when he says that the “writings by those who wrote the 2nd Amendment _ clearly _ meant that “shall not be infringed” meant SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED-_period_.” This means that it is our fundamental right to own and bear arms and that this right is not to be violated by any means such as the government.

Finally, it is ones fundamental right to protect their lives, their family’s lives and belongings from outside forces. The Second Amendment states “the right of the people” which in this case guarantees every individual the right to bear arms. For example, if we as citizens are prohibited from owning and caring a firearm, then who will protect us? Yes the government provides protection to citizens with means such as police and the military; however, they also state that it is our responsibility as a citizen to protect ourselves. The primary responsibility of the police is to enforce our written laws. They are also responsible for protecting the citizens. The police however are not Omni-present and therefore we as citizens of the United States must have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our possessions in circumstances when the police are unable to provide protection. By denying citizens the right to own and carry firearms we are unable to realize this right.

By: Devin Feher

Devin Feher — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:35:26 +0000

I believe that rights should reflect responsibility. When the responsibilities of a militia became supplanted and/or obsolete, any rights that such an informal group may have had should have been revoked; however, due to the fact that there is only the vague reference to a well-regulated militia, there has been little effort to create these expected regulations. So, supporters of gun rights under this supposition, only have grounds to do so because states have not made the effort to clearly designate who should be allotted the responsibilities and, thereby, the rights of militia members.

Those who support the individual right to bear arms as a form of check against the government were right to do so at a certain time. Today, such a notion is naïve. There is little currently armed individuals could do if the government sought to initiate a totalitarian hold on the nation, that is circumstantial, and results necessarily from the global technological/arms race. The only earnest defense against a corrupted, republican government is increased political awareness and involvement.

Those who see the right to bear arms as a necessary supplementation of the police force, are forced to do so because current laws are not properly enforced, and because of the right itself being overextended. Most killer firearms are obtained legally or stolen from someone who obtained them legally. The circumstances which demand individual protection through firearms arose because of the right for individual protection through firearms. This is obviously a positive feedback loop which sets the stage for the ~30,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. annually (principally suicides/accidents).

If one takes that number and extends it over time, it becomes clear that allowing firearms to civilians serves almost entirely to empower statistics to take lives, a force which cannot be brought down with bullets. If one considers individual safety the key motive for the defense of the second amendment, than statistics would quickly denounce such an argument as self- contradictory. The correlation between an increase in guns and an increase in gun-related deaths is indisputable. In regions where civilian firearm use is discouraged, there is a corresponding reduction in gun-related deaths. This is most obvious in Japan, where a population of about half of the U.S. sees only about 60 gun-related deaths annually (the same amount as about 18 hours in the U.S). Those 30,000 or so, who die annually, do so by and large to satisfy a mere semblance of autonomy.
IMHO

By: Abner Laurent

Abner Laurent — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:19:53 +0000

When I peruse through the first line of the Second Amendment, I find an important word “regulated” which comes before “militia”. If militia includes “the people” and the “right of the people” which is found in the Second Amendment, then a “well regulated militia” under a Free State can be a well regulated people under a Free State (people’s rights to bear arms or firearms). This is why I believe the Court will not overturn the “standing” issue, and interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear “arms”.

By: Daniel Drew

Daniel Drew — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:16:55 +0000

While I agree that the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, I see no issue with the states placing a limitation on certain uses of such firearms. I believe that the 2nd Amendment does in fact permit the ownership of guns by individuals. I believe this right to be important in protecting oneself from tyrannical government, foreign attacks, and criminal activity. Even so, I do not see a reason that the state governments would be forbidden to pass a law reasonably controlling the use and possession of certain weapons that may be deemed as dangerous to the community. If after a thorough study, it has been concluded that handguns are more harmful (because of use in criminal activity) than positive (used for self-protection), then the government has a right to protect its citizens by passing such a law. Because the 2nd Amendment ensures the right to bear arms, however, the government must be careful not to infringe upon this right when creating such a law.

By: Eric Rutsky

Eric Rutsky — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:48:51 +0000

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment was designed by our founding fathers to protect its citizens to keep order and a civil society. The 2nd Amendment states that“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”. I do not believe that the founding fathers had any intention to control the distribution of firearms because that would be going against their democratic principles and values. I do however feel that in todays world guns should be regulated to an extent. For example, the only guns that should be allowed on the market should be hand guns, rifles, and shotguns, for self protection as well as sporting activities. I do not feel that it is necessary to have automatic or semi-automatic machine guns. In Heller’s situation in Washington D.C., I feel that Heller should be able to own a gun for either self protecting issues or hunting issues. The 2nd amendment was designed for that reason in my opinion and taking that right away from Heller would be unconstitutional.

By: Michael Richards

Michael Richards — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:32:36 +0000

The case of whether or not the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was decided a long time ago by the Supreme Court in the Barron v. Baltimore (1833) when the court made a 7-0 ruling that the first ten amendments to the Constitution only applied to the Federal Government and thus Americans would have to look to their state constitutions for their rights. Even with the ratification of the 14th amendment (1865), it was decided in Presser v. Illinois (1886) by a 9 to 0 vote that the second amendment only applied to the federal government. This decision was also made in Cruikshank’s v. United States (1876) and that the “due process clause” and “equal protection clause” was only as restriction on the states but had no bearing in the decision of second amendment rights.
It should also be remembered that the founders did not want the constitution to be a suicide pact. In the famous Miller v United States (1939) it stated that the 2nd amendment only applied to weapons that were to be used by a militia and thus biological weapons and missiles would be protected by the second amendment.
A perfect example of the second amendment only applying to the federal government can be found in state constitutions. For example, in my state of Florida, the constitution states “The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.” Even if one argues the fact that Florida became part of the Union prior to the passing of the 14th amendment Alaska also has it in their constitution when stating “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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.” This would have been unnecessary if the second amendment of the US Constitution referred only to the people and not the federal government.
The only thing that makes the Heller case interesting is that Heller is from Washington DC and thus the debate is much smaller in scope, only focusing on the constitutional rights of the capital and whether or not they have the same rights that are granted to them by the states through the constitution. One last point is that the 14th amendment can protect ones right to bear arms but only if the right is expressly placed in their state constitution due to the equal protection clause.

By: Jonathan Bruser

Jonathan Bruser — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:24:59 +0000

It seems rather strange to me that some people choose to ignore the part of the Second Amendment referring to a ‘well regulated militia,’ or else interpret that part of the amendment as not referring to a military organization. The reason it seems so strange is that in every other instance in the Constitution where the word ‘militia’ is used, it refers to a military organization.

Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have the power to… To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; …

Article 2, Section 2: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; …

It seems pretty clear to me that articles 1 and 2 refer to some sort of official, standing military organization. Why, then, should the second amendment not be the same?

By: Patricia Agboro

Patricia Agboro — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:15:37 +0000

When reading this article, I have come to a conclusion. 1. It doesn’t matter where an amendment is placed, the amendment will not say anything different than what is there. 2. The point of the DC ban on guns was to prevent people, especially children from being on the wrong side of a gun. Well, isn’t it true that DC is one of the most violent states in the U.S? So why not let Heller and others protect themselves if obviously the DC ban is not working. I feel it should be uplifted.

The second Amendment reads: “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.”

Reading this amendment to me clearly meant that the “Militia”, such as the Army, National Guard, and the police should be the only ones to have a gun. The second part, which says “….. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This part clearly was a substitute for in case of a tyranny (which has not happened in a long time and I hope it never does). This amendment was written centuries ago in a time where people on the street did not have weapons that were more powerful than the police and a time were guns were not given out so easily (See Bowling for Columbine for understanding, if you haven’t already).

I can see why people would want a gun in today’s society to either protect themselves or their family in case of an emergency from an outside intruder. Many people may live in a city where the nearest police station is 10 or more miles away from the nearest police station and by the time their assistance has arrived for an emergency, it may be too late.

By: Jonathan Raof

Jonathan Raof — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:10:37 +0000

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. This opinion is affirmed through the idea that was brought up in Miller v. U.S; in which the court maintained that the right to bear arms is a right of the people of each state to organize themselves as a military and thus provide their own weapons (the latter is justified when the courts ruled against Miller because they couldn’t demonstrate how a specific weapon would be used for a state militia). So as one can see, the individual has the right to bear arms on either side of the debate because in order to argue that the 2nd amendment is a collective right for the purpose of serving in a state militia, one must have their firearm beforehand.

By: Elizabeth Gosein-Vasquez

Elizabeth Gosein-Vasquez — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:35:00 +0000

Why would the frames state in the second amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” if they did not want their people to be able to protect themselves from the English. I believe that a lot of the confusion has come from the precedent set by previous cases that is making this case seem difficult. In the Miller case, the Supreme Court never clarified exactly what the second amendment stood for in the ruling of that case. Although, isn’t each case supposed to treated differently and the times are different as well. Its obvious crime rates have increased from then to now. So the “right to keep and bear arms” should be for the individual rights. In a means to be able to protect themselves not only from other nations, but harmful people as well. Guns are not going anywhere any time soon, people are going to have them regardless if they are legal or illegal. If a person feels threatened their natural reaction is to defend themselves.