D.C. Circuit Court Rules 2nd Amendment Protects Individuals

[1951Campbell]

Crappy Washinton Post article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901063.html

If you're New York Times registered (which I am not), their article is much better.

[samram]

Good decision. It would be nice if the USSCt heard this and kind of resolved the issue once and for all, but this is good for now. I would imagine there will still be a lot of restrictions.

I like the dodge by the dissenting judge- DC isn't a state.:rolling:

[1951Campbell]

Good decision. It would be nice if the USSCt heard this and kind of resolved the issue once and for all, but this is good for now. I would imagine there will still be a lot of restrictions.

I like the dodge by the dissenting judge- DC isn't a state.:rolling:

It would be nice if the Supremes made it an individual right, but will they if they review this issue? Only the 5th Circuit agrees with DC--all the other circuits disagree, and the 2nd Circuit I guess hasn't weighed in on this one. I think the text is clear but will they want to overturn so many other circuits? I'd be kind of leery about that one.

As for the dissent, yes, that's a laugher.

[SABRSox]

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

I'm not really for or against gun bans, but I'd absolutely agree with the above restrictions being put into place. Too many people buy guns and never learn to use/store them properly.

[CaptainBallz]

I'm not really for or against gun bans, but I'd absolutely agree with the above restrictions being put into place. Too many people buy guns and never learn to use/store them properly.

True.

That ruling seems to be a fair one, as I don't see a real problem with people owning handguns to keep in their homes or with hunting rifles used for, well, hunting.

It doesn't seem that the ruling dismantles any real gun controls, which is a good thing.

[maurice]

Wait, does this mean that maybe Tank Johnson ISN'T the Devil incarnate?

[fquaye14ten]

Wait, does this mean that maybe Tank Johnson ISN'T the Devil incarnate?

Well, they weren't registered. Or maybe they were (as it later turned out). I think too much is being made of Tank Johnson--I don't see what he's done that's so reprehensible, but he did break the law, or supposedly did.

Unregistered firearms are a problem no matter what your stance on gun control

Furthermore, unregistered administrators are lame. Fuck you, Jeans.

[Palehose13]

I'm not really for or against gun bans, but I'd absolutely agree with the above restrictions being put into place. Too many people buy guns and never learn to use/store them properly.

I'm with you. I'm neither here nor there about guns. I don't like them and won't ever own one, but I'm not against people owning them (within reason). Restrictions before buying a gun, IMO, is a good thing.

[DumpJerry]

Court got it dead wrong. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect the states from the federal government much like the Colonies against the King of England.

Keep in mind who wrote the darn thing and the fact that it is a single sentence which starts out with "A well regulated militia...."

Plain and simple.

[1951Campbell]

Court got it dead wrong. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect the states from the federal government much like the Colonies against the King of England.

Keep in mind who wrote the darn thing and the fact that it is a single sentence which starts out with "A well regulated militia...."

Plain and simple.

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 red is the prefatory clause, the pink is the operative clause, so the court got it right.

Also, I'll never understand why some folks think "people" means "everyone" in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, yet means "only militia members" in the 2nd.

[DumpJerry]

Campbell and Chips, sorry to see your ideology has blinded you to common sense. If you spend even five minutes researching the history of the 2nd Amendment, you will see that the drafters were concerned about the federal government acting like the Crown did with the Colonies. They wanted the states to be able to defend themselves in case the feds tried to take over the show, hence the "well regulated militias."

You have to remember that the Founders did not want a strong central government because of how they were treated by the Crown. The Articles of Confederation which predceeded the Consitution established a very weak federal government which was unworkable. The Articles were tossed for the Constitution which did a better job of setting up a federal government which still allowed local governance (states).

Scholars have noted over the years that the term "people" as used in the Amendment means "states" as opposed to "individuals" when it is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. It is ludicrous to contemplate that the drafters meant that anyone has a right to bear arms, the wording would have been completely different. The Founding Fathers viewed the states as being the people since they were more local and provided a protection against a strong federal government.

Shame on you, Campbell, for forgetting the basics of English sentence construction. The subject goes in first (well regulated militia).

[CaptainBallz]

Campbell and Chips, sorry to see your ideology has blinded you to common sense. If you spend even five minutes researching the history of the 2nd Amendment, you will see that the drafters were concerned about the federal government acting like the Crown did with the Colonies. They wanted the states to be able to defend themselves in case the feds tried to take over the show, hence the "well regulated militias."

You have to remember that the Founders did not want a strong central government because of how they were treated by the Crown. The Articles of Confederation which predceeded the Consitution established a very weak federal government which was unworkable. The Articles were tossed for the Constitution which did a better job of setting up a federal government which still allowed local governance (states).

Scholars have noted over the years that the term "people" as used in the Amendment means "states" as opposed to "individuals" when it is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. It is ludicrous to contemplate that the drafters meant that anyone has a right to bear arms, the wording would have been completely different. The Founding Fathers viewed the states as being the people since they were more local and provided a protection against a strong federal government.

Shame on you, Campbell, for forgetting the basics of English sentence construction. The subject goes in first (well regulated militia).

Hmmm, i'm not going to agree that the drafters of the Constitution and the founding fathers were that abstract in their definition of "the People". As enlightened thinkers, many of the founding fathers had a distinct notion of the individual and the individual collective, i.e. "the People."
They by no means generally equated the People's power as deferred to any central authority at all, rather that the People=the state and the state = the People. Of course this notion has been bastardized, but I tend to agree that when the 2nd ammendment states, "the right of the People to bear arms", they are stating that in order for the people, who are the state, to maintain a well regulated militia, they (the people) are ensured the right to bear arms.

[DumpJerry]

Hmmm, i'm not going to agree that the drafters of the Constitution and the founding fathers were that abstract in their definition of "the People". As enlightened thinkers, many of the founding fathers had a distinct notion of the individual and the individual collective, i.e. "the People."
They, by no means, generally equated the People's power as deferred to any central authority at all, rather that the People=the state and the state = the People. Of course this notion has been bastardized, but I tend to agree that when the 2nd ammendment states, "the right of the People to bear arms", they are stating that in order for the people, who are the state, to maintain a well regulated militia, they (the people) are ensured the right to bear arms.
Well, when I was in college, I read the notes from the drafters of the Second Amendment and what I report is what they said they intended. I don't have the paper I wrote any more, it was long ago before computers were smaller than a small building but that does not change what the drafters' wrote in their notes.

One needs to separate his ideology from what the document states. The Supreme Court of the United States (there is no entitly known as "The US Supreme Court") has consistently ruled that the Amendment goes to the States' ability to establish militias (now known as National Guards). The issue has reached the High Nine only a couple of times because it is well-settled law.

[Bonzosa]

The right to bear arms refers to the people, not the states.
I think the NRA would have a problem with your definition.
It's also the reason Dems have not been able to get permanent bans on assault weapons and the like...
People means people. The crafters would have said state militias if that is what they meant.

[maurice]

The framers obviously contemplated that individuals would keep & bear arms. IMO, the more interesting argument is: What kind of arms? There's a wide range between the rifles the framers envisioned and, say, a nuclear warhead.

The USSC already ruled that you don't have a right to keep & bear a sawed-off shotgun, because it's not a millitia-type weapon.

[1951Campbell]

Campbell and Chips, sorry to see your ideology has blinded you to common sense. If you spend even five minutes researching the history of the 2nd Amendment, you will see that the drafters were concerned about the federal government acting like the Crown did with the Colonies. They wanted the states to be able to defend themselves in case the feds tried to take over the show, hence the "well regulated militias."

You have to remember that the Founders did not want a strong central government because of how they were treated by the Crown. The Articles of Confederation which predceeded the Consitution established a very weak federal government which was unworkable. The Articles were tossed for the Constitution which did a better job of setting up a federal government which still allowed local governance (states).

Scholars have noted over the years that the term "people" as used in the Amendment means "states" as opposed to "individuals" when it is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. It is ludicrous to contemplate that the drafters meant that anyone has a right to bear arms, the wording would have been completely different. The Founding Fathers viewed the states as being the people since they were more local and provided a protection against a strong federal government.

Shame on you, Campbell, for forgetting the basics of English sentence construction. The subject goes in first (well regulated militia).

In my practice, I do not litigate and have not litigated any 2nd Amendment issues. However, I have spent more than 5 minutes pondering the 2nd Amendment, both the history surrounding it and the plain meaning of the text. C'mon.

As for the history of the Amendment, from the first day colonists were on these shores, people kept firearms in their homes for personal use. That fact is indisputable. It was a right of the people to do so and no one suggested otherwise. Nothing I have ever read indicates to me that the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment to abolish that right, and to argue that the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that that right was no more, and that only state militia members may keep and bear arms, is silly.

As for the text, I am not a grammar whiz, but I think I know enough about drafting to reiterate: in "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 red is the preface--why what is to be done is to be done--and the pink is operative--what is to be done. The red part is kind of like a "whereas" clause. Furthermore, the Amendment provides that people may "keep" and "bear" arms. If things were set up such that the only time the "people" got to "keep" a weapon was when it was given to them at their National Guard armory, that wouldn't make sense. That doesn't sound like one gets to "keep" the weapon in the commonly understood sense of the word.

Lastly, your supposition that the Framers had one meaning for "people" in the 2nd Amendment and another for Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10--and then choose to obscure that choice by using the word "people" as if it were interchangable without noting their alleged different conceptions of the word--simply doesn't make sense. Some might say it's "ludicrious." I think the wording is plain: for modern ears, it reads as if it said "because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." You seem to feel that allowing all people the right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia is a dumb idea--however, the Framers apparently felt the opposite way.

[DumpJerry]

The right to bear arms refers to the people, not the states.
I think the NRA would have a problem with your definition.
It's also the reason Dems have not been able to get permanent bans on assault weapons and the like...
People means people. The crafters would have said state militias if that is what they meant.
1. What is your source of your interpretation of "People?"
2. There was no NRA in the 1790's, so they had no say in the drafting of the Amendment. Their opinion is irrelevant to what were the Drafters' intentions.
3. The Second Amendment is not why permanent bans on assault weapons have not been enacted. The political process of special interest groups is the reason which is completely unrelated to the Constitution of the United States of America.
4. Not only do they do say "militias" in the Amendment, inf act, they talk about "well regulated militias," but they also stated to each other when drafting the Amendment that they were talking about the states and not people. Your argument fails on that point 100%.

I am not saying that individuals cannot legally own firearms. All I am saying is that the Second Amendment argument is wrong because it is irrelevant.

Give me legal arguments, not ideological demagoguery.

[1951Campbell]

Well, when I was in college, I read the notes from the drafters of the Second Amendment and what I report is what they said they intended. I don't have the paper I wrote any more, it was long ago before computers were smaller than a small building but that does not change what the drafters' wrote in their notes.

One needs to separate his ideology from what the document states. The Supreme Court of the United States (there is no entitly known as "The US Supreme Court") has consistently ruled that the Amendment goes to the States' ability to establish militias (now known as National Guards). The issue has reached the High Nine only a couple of times because it is well-settled law.

Well, if you can Google up the Framers saying "that's it, people can't keep and bear arms anymore. They only get to touch a gun if they're in a state militia," I'll be pretty fucking impressed.

Also, there's a circuit split here. That's hardly "well-settled law."

[maurice]

It is ludicrous to contemplate that the drafters meant that anyone has a right to bear arms, the wording would have been completely different.

Well, yeah. You're right that they didn't mean "anyone." They might "any white male." If all the white guys had rifles, they could join together to form a well-regulated millitia which, as you've said, "provided a protection against a strong federal government." It also helped in the event of a slave revolt.

[DumpJerry]

As for the history of the Amendment, from the first day colonists were on these shores, people kept firearms in their homes for personal use. That fact is indisputable. It was a right of the people to do so and no one suggested otherwise. Nothing I have ever read indicates to me that the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment to abolish that right, and to argue that the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that that right was no more, and that only state militia members may keep and bear arms, is silly.

The Second Amendment was written over 100 years after the first colonists hit the shores. The laws they lived under were not from the same structure as those after the Revolutionary War. The Second Amendment does not abolish the right for individuals to bear arms, it just does not address it.

The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
You are right, the Second Amendment was a check on the federal government from getting wiggy with the locals. This is why states are able to have their own military forces (Natioanl Guards). Think about it, even if you have an Elephant hunting gun, could you stop an Abrams Fighting Vehicle from the U.S. Army if it came rolling down your street?

[Bonzosa]

There is debate about whether "people" only means U.S. citizens as well.
Regardless of how it was intended to be written, we have come to interpret it differently through time, as is the case with many laws.
Roe vs. Wade may be next...which would be sad.

What I don't understand is that conservatives ask for less government control
and infringement on individuals rights.
But, they don't really want that huh?

This is the core of a lot of conflict in this country.

Another example is legislating evolution in the classroom.
Have we not heard of separation of church and state?
Dems aren't any better...

[Bonzosa]

The Second Amendment was written over 100 years after the first colonists hit the shores. The laws they lived under were not from the same structure as those after the Revolutionary War. The Second Amendment does not abolish the right for individuals to bear arms, it just does not address it.


You are right, the Second Amendment was a check on the federal government from getting wiggy with the locals. This is why states are able to have their own military forces (Natioanl Guards). Think about it, even if you have an Elephant hunting gun, could you stop an Abrams Fighting Vehicle from the U.S. Army if it came rolling down your street?

VDG might...

[1951Campbell]

1. What is your source of your interpretation of "People?"


What's yours? A Framers' commentary that you read back in college but somehow escaped being memorialized on the internet?

[1951Campbell]

The Second Amendment was written over 100 years after the first colonists hit the shores. The laws they lived under were not from the same structure as those after the Revolutionary War. The Second Amendment does not abolish the right for individuals to bear arms, it just does not address it.



So, a sentence that contains the clause "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" does not address whether the people can keep and bear arms? :omg:

We're through the looking glass here, folks.

[maurice]

What I don't understand is that conservatives ask for less government control and infringement on individuals rights. But, they don't really want that huh?

Traditional conservatives are definitely anti-big-government and fairly libertarian.

The big-government / shit-on-the-constitution Republicans you hear everywhere these days clearly are not "conservatives" in this traditional sense.

[DumpJerry]

What's yours? A Framers' commentary that you read back in college but somehow escaped being memorialized on the internet?
My inerpretation is irrelevant. I did not write the document, nor am I a judge being asked to interpret it.

My research was over 25 years ago before IBM came out with the first Personal Computer. There was no Internet back then, just the Bitnet which was a military network that supported academics who were involved in military consultations.

I would have to dig up through tons of stuff to see if I can locate what I wrote. If I find it, I will post the citations here.

The stuff I researched still exists. It was in law review articles and Appellete Court decisions. Mostly law reviews since, at the time, there were only three Supreme Court decisions, the most recent was in the 1930's, the other two before 1900. The Appellate Courts mostly said "this is settled law, it does not apply to individuals" so there is not much substance there, either. I don't know if the Supreme Court has handed down any decisions since Miller (the 1930's decision), but the lack of news about the Court addressing the Second Amendment tells me it probably has not heard a case yet.

[1951Campbell]

The stuff I researched still exists. It was in law review articles and Appellete Court decisions. Mostly law reviews since, at the time, there were only three Supreme Court decisions, the most recent was in the 1930's, the other two before 1900. The Appellate Courts mostly said "this is settled law, it does not apply to individuals" so there is not much substance there, either. I don't know if the Supreme Court has handed down any decisions since Miller (the 1930's decision), but the lack of news about the Court addressing the Second Amendment tells me it probably has not heard a case yet.

There is no lack of news about the 2nd Amendment. The 5th Circuit found it to be an individual right in 2001, the Bush Administration has been the first administration I know of to say it's an individual right as a matter of policy, and now the DC Circuit has weighed in. And no, the Supremes haven't weighed in yet.

And I know what Miller says, I just think it's wrong in light of the text, that's all.

[maurice]

U.S. v. Miller actually supports the arguments I'm making. Again, the Court only held that you don't have a right to possess a sawed-off shotgun, because it's not a militia-type weapon. That's it. Some pertinent language from the decision:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. . . .
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. . . .
In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms . . . .
307 U.S. 174.

Like I said, it's obvious that the framers contemplated that individuals would keep & bear arms. The question is: What kind of arms?

[Bonzosa]

The Second Amendment was written over 100 years after the first colonists hit the shores. The laws they lived under were not from the same structure as those after the Revolutionary War. The Second Amendment does not abolish the right for individuals to bear arms, it just does not address it.


You are right, the Second Amendment was a check on the federal government from getting wiggy with the locals. This is why states are able to have their own military forces (Natioanl Guards). Think about it, even if you have an Elephant hunting gun, could you stop an Abrams Fighting Vehicle from the U.S. Army if it came rolling down your street?

all arms.
At that time.
Now that we have missiles etc, we adopt and interpret the constitution to reflect changes over time.
It is a threat to national security for any individual to possess missiles. Therefore it is illegal...
You also cannot own a fighter jet with all the navigation systems and weapons capacities, in case you were wondering...

[Bonzosa]

The constitution is a flexible document, not a rigid one. Therefore it will be interpreted over time with fluidity, as we interpret what the founding fathers meant to say, or would have said based on the document as a whole.

[1951Campbell]

Like I said, it's obvious that the framers contemplated that individuals would keep & bear arms. The question is: What kind of arms?

If we're going by "supplied by themselves," what could such militiamen realistically show up with? Rifles and pistols, that's about it.

[1951Campbell]

The constitution is a flexible document, not a rigid one. Therefore it will be interpreted over time with fluidity, as we interpret what the founding fathers meant to say, or would have said based on the document as a whole.


That sort of "dynamic interpretation" view of the Constitution is precisely what drains it of any meaning. Dangerous stuff.

[maurice]

If we're going by "supplied by themselves," what could such militiamen realistically show up with? Rifles and pistols, that's about it.

Agreed. That's why I'm fine with any court ruling that the 2nd Amend. provides an individual the right to possess things like hunting rifles and pistols . . . but not bazookas, flamethrowers, and tomahawk missiles.

[Bonzosa]

Agreed. That's why I'm fine with any court ruling that the 2nd Amend. provides an individual the right to possess things like hunting rifles and pistols . . . but not bazookas, flamethrowers, and tomahawk missiles.

You guys are complete tools.
You tell me you shouldn't interpret the Constitution. I come back and you guys are interpreting the intention of the document.
Hmmmm.....
Something is not right.
Hello?
Courts interpret the document, that's their job you doldts.

The real question is how you want to interpret it.
You guys really should listen to yourselves some time, it's comical.

If you were literall about the intention of the document you would also need to factor that women could not vote, slavery was legal, homosexuals were locked up and domestic violence was overlooked.
Yeah, let's have a literall interpretation of the document.
Even though you two are not doing what you complained about 2 posts ago.
Get real.

[CaptainBallz]

Agreed. That's why I'm fine with any court ruling that the 2nd Amend. provides an individual the right to possess things like hunting rifles and pistols . . . but not bazookas, flamethrowers, and tomahawk missiles.

Right. It's all fairly logical and, although not ideal for the "perfect society", is a reasonable compromise of intents and purposes.
It's when the issue gets muddled with cries of foul from people that are against gun registration and background checks and assault weapon regulations, etc. that this topic gets dragged into the gutter.

It all really depends on what Coral Reef can pull out of the matrix here, because I think we're all in basic agreement.

[1951Campbell]

You guys are complete tools.
You tell me you shouldn't interpret the Constitution. I come back and you guys are interpreting the intention of the document.
Hmmmm.....
Something is not right.
Hello?
Courts interpret the document, that's their job you doldts.

The real question is how you want to interpret it.
You guys really should listen to yourselves some time, it's comical.

If you were literall about the intention of the document you would also need to factor that women could not vote, slavery was legal, homosexuals were locked up and domestic violence was overlooked.
Yeah, let's have a literall interpretation of the document.
Even though you two are not doing what you complained about 2 posts ago.
Get real.

All I said was that I don't like "dynamic interpretation." :shrug:

[Bonzosa]

All I said was that I don't like "dynamic interpretation." :shrug:

Yes, while I admit I misread the post I will never admit I am wrong.

I just don't understand how the const. is a static document. You will have to admit things have changed and become more complicated since its inception. No?:confused:

[1951Campbell]

I just don't understand how the const. is a static document. You will have to admit things have changed and become more complicated since its inception. No?:confused:

Yes, times change. There is a mechanism to allow for that--it's called amending the Constitution.

"This is how I think the Constituion should read, and I bet the Framers would agree with me if there were around today" is a recipe for disaster, however.

If every clause of the Constitution and every law was dynamic and not static, how would we ever know, you know, what the law actually is? The best laws are predictable laws. That way we know what the rules are and what's expected of us. And if such a "static" world is not appealing, then go to the legistature, not the judicairy.

[maurice]

You guys are complete tools....you dolts.

Name-calling: the hallmark of a reasonable and intelligent poster.

Your "argument" cuts both ways. Everything is all well and good until a judge with different values than yours "interprets" (read: disregards) the constitution to make a ruling that you don't like. Remember when the USSC forced Florida to stop counting the votes? They claimed they were "interpreting" the Equal Protection Clause. Remember all the decisions that erode your right to be free from illegal searches and seizures? That's judges "interpreting" the 4th Amendment. One USSC case says that criminalizing sodomy is A-OK. A latter case reaches the opposite conclusion, based on the very same constitution. At least one of these decisions probably pissed you off but, hey, they were just "interpreting."

If you were literall about the intention of the document you would also need to factor that women could not vote, slavery was legal

Right . . . and then they amended the constitution to change these, you dolt.
:rolleyes:

[LuvSox]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6117/beararmsgh7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Prope]

Campbell and Chips, sorry to see your ideology has blinded you to common sense. If you spend even five minutes researching the history of the 2nd Amendment, you will see that the drafters were concerned about the federal government acting like the Crown did with the Colonies. They wanted the states to be able to defend themselves in case the feds tried to take over the show, hence the "well regulated militias."

You have to remember that the Founders did not want a strong central government because of how they were treated by the Crown. The Articles of Confederation which predceeded the Consitution established a very weak federal government which was unworkable. The Articles were tossed for the Constitution which did a better job of setting up a federal government which still allowed local governance (states).

Scholars have noted over the years that the term "people" as used in the Amendment means "states" as opposed to "individuals" when it is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. It is ludicrous to contemplate that the drafters meant that anyone has a right to bear arms, the wording would have been completely different. The Founding Fathers viewed the states as being the people since they were more local and provided a protection against a strong federal government.
Yeah, I bought that textbook in college too.

[1951Campbell]

The New York Times takes notice of how liberal law professors like Lawrence Tribe are coming around to the individual right position:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

And some commentary on the New York Times article at Reason magazine:

http://www.reason.com/blog/#120058

[MSquad]

Traditional conservatives are definitely anti-big-government and fairly libertarian.

The big-government / shit-on-the-constitution Republicans you hear everywhere these days clearly are not "conservatives" in this traditional sense. Folks like me would be the former, and dickheads like the one in the White House would be the latter.

[StockdaleforVeep]

Court got it dead wrong. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect the states from the federal government much like the Colonies against the King of England.

Keep in mind who wrote the darn thing and the fact that it is a single sentence which starts out with "A well regulated militia...."

Plain and simple.

So then the police have no right to carry guns nor the military because the only established "militia" is the national guard

I am pro all owning guns

[1951Campbell]

So, today the Supreme Court decided...to decide later whether or not to decide if the 2nd Amendment is an individual right:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/supreme_court_punts_on_dc_gun_ban/

[soxwon]

Guns make America Great!!!
In the hands of proper people.

Folks like me would be the former, and dickheads like the one in the White House would be the latter.

If hillary gets in, which she wont- can we call her a VAGHEAD?
Hillary endorses guns, just ask Vince Foster- Oh wait, he's dead!!!!

[Ziggy]

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of hers, but yeah I'll believe a conspiracy theory that Jerry Falwell alleged in one of his terrific videos. After all, if a lovable man of G-d like Falwell says such and such is a murderer, I've just got to believe him.:jagoff: You're joking about that, right Rev?

[gbergman]

As a gun owner I am happy, but I think anything with automatic in its name should be banned. To much bad shit can happen with them in the wrong hands. If you have to defend yourself with an automatic then God help us all.

[maurice]

I hate it when appellate courts "punt."

Att'n Justices: You job is to tell us what the law is. This issue has been around for awhile. Get to work on it.

[Ziggy]

I wouldn't want anything beyond a 9mm pistol or shotgun. I don't know why someone who doesn't use an assault rifle for employment (accepted or otherwise) would need to own one, never mind someone possessing at least fifteen of AK's, M-16's, and so on.

[Sir Realist]

We the people must be armed with automatic weapons, and lots of 'em. The revolution will not be won by people wearing Birkenstock sandals. Urban warfare is a royal bitch.

[Ziggy]

Shit, if the struggle comes down to the revolution we'll need bombs, biological and/or chemical agents, some light sabers, and helmets that spew lasers.

[1951Campbell]

I hate it when appellate courts "punt."

Att'n Justices: You job is to tell us what the law is. This issue has been around for awhile. Get to work on it.

Now it's on, they will decide:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident – have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

Some observers who read the Court’s order closely may suggest that the Court is already inclined toward an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is because the order asks whether the three provisions of the D.C. gun control law violate “the Second Amendment rights of individuals.” But that phrasing may reveal very little about whether the Amendment embraces an individual right to have a gun for private use. Only individuals, of course, would be serving in the militia, and there is no doubt that the Second Amendment provides those individuals a right to have a gun for that type of service. The question the Court will be deciding is, if there are individuals who want to keep pistols for use at home, does the Second Amendment guarantee them that right. Just because the Second Amendment protects some individual right does not settle the nature of that right.

[samram]

:thinking: Even if they first want to decide whether DC is covered, there's a good chance something important will be decided.

[maurice]

I think they're reading too much into the language the Court used.

The main respondent is arguing that he has an individual right to have a handgun in his DC home for self-defense purposes and not militia purposes, so that's the issue the Court will need to decide.