New individual right?

[Okla-homey]

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Parker v. District of Columbia that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (a local law that effectively bars District residents from owning handguns) violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In doing so, the circuit court became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a gun control law for reasons based on the Second Amendment, and the second to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms. In early September both the District and the plantiffs sought Supreme Court review. Today the Court granted cert. (for the non legal beagles, that means they'll hear the case.)

The upshot is, we're going to learn definitively if, as I have always believed, gun ownership is an individual right protected by the Constitution.

I might add, if SCOTUS does so, this will be akin to discovering an eighth continent for constitutional law scholars.

[yermom]

yeah, the gun nuts have been drooling on this one for a while.

i have to say i'm pretty interested to see how this one turns out

(i'm using "gun nut" in the most affectionate way possible)

[JohnnyMack]

Where do the commas belong?

[OUDoc]

(i'm using "gun nut" in the most affectionate way possible)
Making sure I'm never standing too close to yermom while in public.....


;)

[Widescreen]

I hope SCOTUS does the right thing and strikes the ban down.

Oh, and JM. Tell Tenel Ka I said "hi".

[Okla-homey]

We could lose, but it's worth a shot b/c we're not likely to have a more sympathetic Court in the next twenty years. In fact, I reckon this is the best shot at settling this issue once and for all in my lifetime.

[Curly Bill]

Lets hope we can get this settled for the good, meaning that it is in fact an individual right, before Madam Hillary gets elected, and along with a Democratic congress decides they don't like the proletariat owning shooting irons. If it is found not to be an individual right you can expect an assault on private gun ownership to begin before the justices have left the building.

Course if we can keep ol' Hill out of the oval office that would be fine too. ;)

[OUHOMER]

Just in case, I better go buy some guns off the street and hide them...

[Curly Bill]

Just in case, I better go buy some guns off the street and hide them...

Fortunately, we have a culture that values personal rights,and a constitution that recognizes many of those rights, and that's something that a lot of the countries that have enacted almost total gun bans didn't have. Depending on this Supreme Court ruling, who wins the next election, etc..we'll see more attempts at gun control, but I think in this country really draconian widespread gun banning is a long way off....knock on wood.

edit...but still your idea has some merit. :D

[olevetonahill]

I aint sayin Nuttin cept if I dont like how it goes , Im settin up my perimeter . and lockin my gate .

[Jerk]

"Surrendering their guns is a mistake that free people get to make only once"

Damn! I lost all of mine in a tragic boating accident!

[Jerk]

ps- this is about more than gun ownership. A lot more.

It boils down to whether or not free men and women have the right of self-preservation. I believe this right is from our Creator, and cannot be taken away by gov't.

[Curly Bill]

ps- this is about more than gun ownership. A lot more.

It boils down to whether or not free men and women have the right of self-preservation. I believe this right is from our Creator, and cannot be taken away by gov't.

Damn straight!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Lets hope we can get this settled for the good, meaning that it is in fact an individual right, before Madam Hillary gets elected, and along with a Democratic congress decides they don't like the proletariat owning shooting irons. If it is found not to be an individual right you can expect an assault on private gun ownership to begin before the justices have left the building.

Course if we can keep ol' Hill out of the oval office that would be fine too. ;)


I know Senator Clinton is for registration, background checks, etc., but I've never read anything that indicates she is in favor of banning gun ownership.

While you're bashing Clinton, why not Guiliani too?

Giuliani supports gun control.

For example, Giuliani's campaign staff specified that he supports handgun licensing and a national registry of handguns. As mayor, Giuliani signed legislation requiring trigger locks whenever guns are sold in the city and outlawing the sale of toy guns that resemble real guns.

Giuliani also supported the federal assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton and supports background checks at gun shows.




"The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America."
-- Senator Clinton

[Curly Bill]

I know Senator Clinton is for registration, background checks, etc., but I've never read anything that indicates she is in favor of banning gun ownership.

While you're bashing Clinton, why not Guiliani too?
Giuliani supports gun control.

Other then you who said anything about Guiliani in this thread? I don't give a carp for Clinton or Guiliani.

...and why is Hillary for registration? Most people, most thinking people anyway, see this merely as the way for the govt. to find out where the guns are, so when there is the will and a way to do so, they no where to find them and remove them from private possession.

The path to banning in other countries has been quite predictable really: first the people have to agree to more and more restrictions in the name of safety, what type of guns they can own, where and in what manner they may actually be used by the owner; then when that doesn't quite work out as promised it's becasue there are too many guns and in the wrong hands so lets register them so criminals won't have them; then when that doesn't work either it's becasue guns are inherently evil so must be taken from the people for the good of all, because after all our benign and all-knowing govt. is there to protect us, so why would we need a means to defend ourselves, so now lets remove those evil guns from the poor little sheep..I mean people, and since we have them all registered, well except those in criminal hands, we know where to go and get them...

So...if Hillary, or Rudy who you always want to bring up for some reason, is in favor of gun registration then in my book they are in favor of gun banning.

[Curly Bill]

"The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America."
-- Senator Clinton

Actually, according to the oath they take when they are sworn in their obligation is to defend the Constitution of the United States.

edit...contained in said Constitution is a little thing called the 2nd amendment.

[olevetonahill]

Actually, according to the oath they take when they are sworn in their obligation is to defend the Constitution of the United States.

edit...contained in said Constitution is a little thing called the 2nd amendment.
juan an hillary aint got time to be bothered with trivial stuff . They be inerested in protectin Us
Pay tention from now on :cool:

[Curly Bill]

juan an hillary aint got time to be bothered with trivial stuff . They be inerested in protectin Us
Pay tention from now on :cool:

I know how those liberal, nanny-state, democrats are...but I can do my own protectin thank you very much. ;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

is in favor of gun registration then in my book they are in favor of gun banning.


registration does not equal banning.

We register our autos.

If you add a room to your house you need a permit.

You start a business, you need a permit/license.

When your children are born you register them (w/SS Admin.)

The gov't doesn't take away your auto, house, business, or your kids unless you're a drug dealer, crook, murderer, or lunatic. Why are you paranoid. Curly? ;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

edit...contained in said Constitution is a little thing called the 2nd amendment.

has any court ruled that requiring registration/background checks, violates ones right to bear arms?

[olevetonahill]

registration does not equal banning.

We register our autos. because if we dont we go to Jail

If you add a room to your house you need a permit. Not Me

You start a business, you need a permit/license. Not me

When your children are born you register them (w/SS Admin.) Sos the government can watch em

The gov't doesn't take away your auto, house, business, or your kids unless you're a drug dealer, crook, murderer, or lunatic. Why are you paranoid. Curly? ;)
But If we dont do those things then we ARE a crook at least.
Then they come atcha :P

[olevetonahill]

has any court ruled that requiring registration/background checks, violates ones right to bear arms?
Hey jaun , What is your definition Of " INFRINGE "

[Curly Bill]

registration does not equal banning.

We register our autos.

If you add a room to your house you need a permit.

You start a business, you need a permit/license.

When your children are born you register them (w/SS Admin.)

The gov't doesn't take away your auto, house, business, or your kids unless you're a drug dealer, crook, murderer, or lunatic. Why are you paranoid. Curly? ;)

...but then the Constitution doesn't specifically grant you the right to possess an auto, an extra room, or a business now does it?

I'm paranoid because the first steps taken by Hitler, (genocide of 12,000,000 innocent people), and Stalin (genocide of perhaps 25,000,000 people) was to take away the individual right to own a firearm. You see that way they couldn't resist when the gov. came to lock them up, put them on trains for the camps, so on and so forth. You think that can't ever happen again? You think it could never happen here?

You know anything about John Locke, Joaquin? Know anything about the founders of this country and what their thoughts were? No, of course you don't. You're simply going off of the talking points from Handgun Control Inc. and their ilk, and yeah that includes Hillary.

[Okla-homey]

My bottomline on this is simple.

Personal defense is a non-delegable individual responsibility. Therefore, the right to bear arms must remain an individual right...at least until the cops figure out a way to guarentee they'll be by my side within 60 seconds of my 911 call.

Frankly, I don't rely on the state to feed, house, or clothe me. It's equally silly to rely on the state to defend me from bad guys.

[olevetonahill]

My bottomline on this is simple.

Personal defense is a non-delegable individual responsibility. Therefore, the right to bear arms must remain an individual right...at least until the cops figure out a way to guarentee they'll be by my side within 60 seconds of my 911 call.
I aint waitin 60 seconds to defend MYself
But did Yall notice juan makes a purty Taco ?

[Curly Bill]

My bottomline on this is simple.

Personal defense is a non-delegable individual responsibility. Therefore, the right to bear arms must remain an individual right...at least until the cops figure out a way to guarentee they'll be by my side within 60 seconds of my 911 call.

Right on! Until I get my own 24-7 personal protector police-man/woman, I'll be depending on Mr. Glock...in less then 60 seconds I can have him by my side. ;)

[olevetonahill]

Right on! Until I get my own 24-7 personal protector police-man/woman, I'll be depending on Mr. Glock...in less then 60 seconds I can have him by my side. ;)
Well now if hillary is gonna give me a protector wimmiens to stay by my side . I might Be up for that :D

[Curly Bill]

Hey, ol' Juan puts lots of trust in his government...there's something very innocent and disarming (pun intended) about that. Of course looked at from a historical perspective, which apparently Juan lacks, it's also naive.

[Curly Bill]

Well now if hillary is gonna give me a protector wimmiens to stay by my side . I might Be up for that :D

Me too...but I gotta be able to pick her out. :D

[olevetonahill]

Me too...but I gotta be able to pick her out. :D
Hells Yea , the Possibities are endless . 3somes , Showers with a friend . ETC .:D

[Curly Bill]

Another thing I like about ol' Juan is anytime you say something about Hillary he always come back with: well, what about Guiliani, blah, blah, blah...

Like I give a rats-*** about Guiliani.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You know anything about John Locke, Joaquin? Know anything about the founders of this country and what their thoughts were? No, of course you don't.

why the insult? what, folks who don't believe registration equals banning have no knowledge of American History?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Another thing I like about ol' Juan is anytime you say something about Hillary he always come back with: well, what about Guiliani, blah, blah, blah...

Like I give a rats-*** about Guiliani.

why do you give a rats a$$ about Hillary but not Rudy?

[Curly Bill]

why the insult? what, folks who don't believe registration equals banning have no knowledge of American History?

...something like that. You see Juan, the reason the founders gave us the
2nd amendment wasn't so we could shoot rabbits and such, but so the people could if necessary defend themselves from the over-reaching of their government. Remember now, we'd just fought a war of independence against just such a govt. So, now that we are setting up this new government the founders wanted to make sure that we the people could if necessary do again just what they had done in overthrowing the tyrannical rule of the British crown.

John Locke was the British philosopher that developed what we call the Social Contract. That Social Contract was the idea that people are born with certain natural rights, that they merely create govt. to insure and protect those natural rights, but if the govt. failed to do that, or if it infringed upon those rights, the people had the opportunity and in fact the obligation to get rid of that government.

Our founders were familiar with the writings of Mr. Locke you see, and much of the ideas in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are based upon his ideas. So, with his idea of the people's obligation to resist the overstepping of a government, the founders very wisely gave us the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, so they would have the means to resist.

[Curly Bill]

why do you give a rats a$$ about Hillary but not Rudy?

You misunderstand...I don't give a rats-*** about either of them. For all I care they can both move out to the People's Republic of Californy with you.

[jwlynn64]

I think that he misinterpreted that you only used her name because of the widely held belief that she is very controlling and believes everyone except her and her crony friends are idiots.

I think that his point is that you have it out for her and her alone.

[Curly Bill]

I think that he misinterpreted that you only used her name because of the widely held belief that she is very controlling and believes everyone except her and her crony friends are idiots.

I think that his point is that you have it out for her and her alone.

You're right I think, but he gets very touchy whenever you bag on Hillary, and he immediately goes into: well, what about Guiliani, blah, blah, blah... mode. I don't remember anyone in this thread saying they were big Guiliani fans either. I guess it's just automatic with him: someone attacks Hillary, he automatically figues he'll divert attention by attacking Guiliani. Hey, attack Guiliani and see if I care.

[olevetonahill]

Attack who you want Just leave My ****ing GUNS alone :cool: :pop:

[Curly Bill]

Attack who you want Just leave My ****ing GUNS alone :cool: :pop:

Ah, come on Olevet, he just wants us to register them. ;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So, with his idea of the people's obligation to resist the overstepping of a government, the founders very wisely gave us the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, so they would have the means to resist..

which I don't disagree with. My own wife has a California permit to carry a concealed weapon. She had to jump through hoops to get it - take a class (both classroom and on the range), and renew it every so often. I don't see what is objectional about that.

[jwlynn64]

So only people who can afford the permit and take the classes should have the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their family?

I understand that your expense was for the right to carry part but registration is just the first step to permits, limits, etc....

[olevetonahill]

HEH my son got his CCP . Now he has to Jump out and tell a cop he has a weapon ( of he gets stopped )
Me I just say Guess sucker :D

[Curly Bill]

.

which I don't disagree with. My own wife has a California permit to carry a concealed weapon. She had to jump through hoops to get it - take a class (both classroom and on the range), and renew it every so often. I don't see what is objectional about that.

I did that too, but that's quite different from the very fundamental right to own and possess a firearm. If registration was all that the govt. might do regarding that fundamental right then we wouldn't be having this argument. Instead there is a historical precedent that gun registration ends up leading to gun banning and confiscation. It's not that I totally distrust this government, I just don't know what the next one is going to be like, or the one after that, nor do I know when some fool might want to break into my crib.

The German peeps when they gave up their guns to Hitler did so with the idea that he was going to be their protector, that they wouldn't need them...well, we know in hindsight that wasn't true was it? Besides that, if we let the govt. infringe on this right what's next? The 1st amendment, the 4th, the 5th?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So only people who can afford the permit and take the classes should have the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their family?

well then I guess the guns should be free too, so welfare folks can have them. maybe build a NRA gun give-away booth next to St. Mary's Dining Hall.

should we ask for Green Cards?

[olevetonahill]

well then I guess the guns should be free too, so welfare folks can have them. maybe build a NRA gun give-away booth next to St. Mary's Dining Hall.

should we ask for Green Cards?
Green Cards aint a Bad Idea . We could give the poor folk all those Guns we LEGALY take away from Crooks and such
Dayum juan you are onto sumpin here

[Curly Bill]

Gun registration is just a backdoor attempt at gun confiscation. First comes the registration, now the govt. knows where they, then when in a position to attempt to do so they come and get them, and if you don't give them up, you are now a criminal.

SOOOOOOOOO, no thanks, on gun registration.

[olevetonahill]

Gun registration is just a backdoor attempt at gun confiscation. First comes the registration, now the govt. knows where they, then when in a position to attempt to do so they come and get them, and if you don't give them up, you are now a criminal.

SOOOOOOOOO, no thanks, on gun registration.
Why you wanta be such a hardass ? cant we ALL just get along ?:pop:

[Curly Bill]

This has been an invigorating discussion, but your's truly has work tomorrow (half day). I'm off to bed now, and yeah my own personal defense firearm will be in reach! Don't say you haven't been warned! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Curly Bill]

Why you wanta be such a hardass ? cant we ALL just get along ?:pop:

Yeah, lets all be friends...just leave the damn 2nd amendment alone! :mad: ;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

why hasn't someone, the NRA or somebody, taken the registration issue to the Supreme Court? do you think Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy think registration requirements are unconstitutional? i'm confident at least a couple of them have heard of John Locke.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, lets all be friends...just leave the damn 2nd amendment alone! :mad: ;)
We should make a Vid
Like leave britany alone :D :D :D :D :D

[jwlynn64]

well then I guess the guns should be free too, so welfare folks can have them. maybe build a NRA gun give-away booth next to St. Mary's Dining Hall.

should we ask for Green Cards?

Maybe I'm missing something here. A gun a real object that was made by someone using resources that they purchased? I don't think that it is too much to expect that someone might have to pay to acquire that gun? Better guns go to people that can pay more but there are also less expensive options for people of lesser means. In our society, it is expected that you pay for what you get. If you want something bad enough, you will save and maybe do without something else until you can afford it.

Registration fees and permits, on the other hand, are not really a value added purchases are they. The government has already used registration as a means to reduce the number of guns sold by requiring stores to perform background checks on consumers of handguns. Even though this is probably a good idea, it is still a means that our government uses to discourage behavior that it doesn't like.

[olevetonahill]

why hasn't someone, the NRA or somebody, taken the registration issue to the Supreme Court? do you think Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy think registration requirements are unconstitutional?
juan ARE you stupid ? Pay tention
After 200 plus years we are just NOW gettin the 2ND amendment In front of em . :P

[soonerscuba]

If John Locke is in such favor of the second amendment why is the only death he's caused was with a knife?

[SoonerTerry]

registration does not equal banning.

We register our autos.

If you add a room to your house you need a permit.

You start a business, you need a permit/license.

When your children are born you register them (w/SS Admin.)

The gov't doesn't take away your auto, house, business, or your kids unless you're a drug dealer, crook, murderer, or lunatic. Why are you paranoid. Curly? ;)

Or owe back taxes or are a dissident or are considered a threat to national security.. or anything else a corrupt official can come up with, and since they know you have them.. well consider them gone. I refuse to believe you are not intelligent enought to see this.

[Jello Biafra]

vet, you asked my opinion so here goes.......

i can't LEGALLY own a firearm....if im guessing, neither can you. thanks to the VA, I am a risk because of the favor VA did me by signing off on my "issues" as PTSD. i called bullshiite but you can't fight the government once they have your hooks in ya. anyway, i personally think the people that will be hurt by the registery will be the people who have a legitimate reason to have one.

i think people should educate their children.....in every facet of their life. if im pulled over late at night, I make sure the officer can see EVERYTHING im doing. imagine yourself in his shoes..... i have dark tinted windows so regardless of the weather i roll all windows down so i can put his mind at ease. most people now a days only want to complain that the "man" is out to get them and claim they were treated unfairly. simple. be respectful and do exactly as your asked......


Im not mad at the way my life turned out. I wouldn't trade any experience i've had thus far but all i can say is make sure your kids are studying and keep them out of the recruting office :)


ps. i have many guns not legally but i do have them. ive never hurt anyone but im not going to take a chance with my family. Ive seen the best AND worst in life and i want to make sure that i keep as much of the worse away from my family.

[olevetonahill]

Bro Im 100 % total an permant
So I know what I speak Yes You can legaly OWN a weapon . Ive passed the background checks . so can you
Now If they pass this law that the idiots are tryin for to Open up OUR VA records . then We might be ****ed . But Nowhere does it say we Cant OWN . We just may not be able to BUY . *******s

[Jello Biafra]

Bro Im 100 % total an permant
So I know what I speak Yes You can legaly OWN a weapon . Ive passed the background checks . so can you
Now If they pass this law that the idiots are tryin for to Open up OUR VA records . then We might be ****ed . But Nowhere does it say we Cant OWN . We just may not be able to BUY . *******s


heh. maybe i should check a little more :)

I've already been turned down by a few life insurance comapanies because of my "open records" i guess i only assume the worst. by the way, I had a little vaca on the thrid floor at VA in okc for threatening errrr...having an altercation with a shrink, hence the problems.......

[SanJoaquinSooner]

juan ARE you stupid ? Pay tention
After 200 plus years we are just NOW gettin the 2ND amendment In front of em . :P

I expect this court will say gov't can't ban hand guns. I'll bet a sizable wager they'll still allow state/local regulation.

[olevetonahill]

heh. maybe i should check a little more :)

I've already been turned down by a few life insurance comapanies because of my "open records" i guess i only assume the worst. by the way, I had a little vaca on the thrid floor at VA in okc for threatening errrr...having an altercation with a shrink, hence the problems.......
Ive Not been able to get More Life insurance cause the VA wont give em the Info . Its all good bro :cool:

[Jerk]

Jello:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151321_1,00.html?wh=wh


Also..

"Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws."

I guess it depends on whether or not your 'vacation' to the VA was for observation or if you were adjudicated.

[Curly Bill]

why hasn't someone, the NRA or somebody, taken the registration issue to the Supreme Court? do you think Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy think registration requirements are unconstitutional? i'm confident at least a couple of them have heard of John Locke.

Registration issue? Are you aware that there is no such thing as nationwide registration currently? Soooooo, that's why no one has taken it to court....it does not exist!!!!

[Curly Bill]

Quit trying to be the Devil's advocate on this Sanjoaquin, like someone said: you have to be smater then this.

[Curly Bill]

Had to make another post to get off that Devil number....see my post count.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Registration issue? Are you aware that there is no such thing as nationwide registration currently? Soooooo, that's why no one has taken it to court....it does not exist!!!!


Sorry, this doesn't compute curly. The D.C. hand gun ban is not a national ban, but it is still going to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it's a U.S. constitutional issue, a local or state law still can go the the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you and others believe states and local gov'ts can't have regulations that require some sort of registration because it infringes on your right to bear arms, it would be an issue the Federal Courts could address.

Are there no local or state gun registration laws that you believe violate the 2nd amendment?

[mdklatt]

Even though this is probably a good idea, it is still a means that our government uses to discourage behavior that it doesn't like.

I'm okay with the government discouraging felons from having guns.

[jeremy885]

I'm okay with the government discouraging felons from having guns.


don't forget crazy people.

[Curly Bill]

Sorry, this doesn't compute curly. The D.C. hand gun ban is not a national ban, but it is still going to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it's a U.S. constitutional issue, a local or state law still can go the the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you and others believe states and local gov'ts can't have regulations that require some sort of registration because it infringes on your right to bear arms, it would be an issue the Federal Courts could address.

Are there no local or state gun registration laws that you believe violate the 2nd amendment?

Your entire post doesn't compute! Where did I say anything about Wash DC? I said there is not nationwide firearms registration, and there's not!!! You contradicted yourself in you own post saying the DC ban is not national!!! I'm willing to debate this with you, just make sense when you attempt to do so.
...and yes I think any gun registration would be a violation of the 2nd amendment. Something about the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed....registration would be an infringement!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Your entire post doesn't compute! Where did I say anything about Wash DC? I said there is not nationwide firearms registration, and there's not!!! You contradicted yourself in you own post saying the DC ban is not national!!! I'm willing to debate this with you, just make sense when you attempt to do so.
...and yes I think any gun registration would be a violation of the 2nd amendment. Something about the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed....registration would be an infringement!


Uh, that's the basis of this thread. The U.S. Supreme court has agreed to hear the D.C. handgun ban case, which is a LOCAL ban, not a NATIONAL ban:


Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Parker v. District of Columbia that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (a local law that effectively bars District residents from owning handguns) violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In doing so, the circuit court became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a gun control law for reasons based on the Second Amendment, and the second to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms. In early September both the District and the plantiffs sought Supreme Court review. Today the Court granted cert. (for the non legal beagles, that means they'll hear the case

[Vaevictis]

why hasn't someone, the NRA or somebody, taken the registration issue to the Supreme Court? do you think Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy think registration requirements are unconstitutional? i'm confident at least a couple of them have heard of John Locke.

I suspect it's because the Supreme Court has done its very, very best to dance around the issue and avoid taking cases that directly address the second Amendment... until now.

Hell, for all we know, they may end up remanding on a technical issue and refuse to rule on the Constitutionality. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Curly Bill]

that's the basis of this thread.

Listen sanjoaq, this was interesting for a while, but you seem incapable of actually reading a post and responding to that actual post. Instead you go off on some tangent to try and deflect your inability or unwillingness to deal with the question at hand. You sound like...well, a politician. In fact I'm not sure you're not Hillary herself, she seems to suffer from the same affliction. Now, isn't this where you bring up something about Guiliani?

[Jerk]

I suspect it's because the Supreme Court has done its very, very best to dance around the issue and avoid taking cases that directly address the second Amendment... until now.

Hell, for all we know, they may end up remanding on a technical issue and refuse to rule on the Constitutionality. It wouldn't be the first time.

My theory is that they will either do this (punt the ball) or they will rule a "narrow" individual right subject to "reasonable regulations." So an out-right ban would not survive, but other regs such as disallowing felons to own guns will stand.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Unholster the 2nd Amendment
by Robert A. Levy



It's been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the 2nd Amendment. It's been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It's been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban — among the most restrictive in the nation — unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon.

Later this month, the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the circuit court's blockbuster opinion in Parker vs. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law on the ground that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals. If the high court takes the case, oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (Full disclosure: I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

.

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. And this round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the heat of the 2008 election. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws, no matter where an alleged 2nd Amendment violation might have occurred. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.

The first is the knotty question of whether the 2nd Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.

Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder). Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.

But the Constitution does not permit an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all homes, for all residents, as in the case of the Washington ban (with the exception of current and retired police officers). Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

[I]t's time for the Supreme Court to revitalize the 2nd Amendment, which has lain dormant for nearly seven decades.
Meanwhile, the high court also will have to reexamine its 1939 gun case, United States vs. Miller, which generated more heat than light regarding the 2nd Amendment. The core holding of Miller, stripped of confusing clutter, was that protected weapons must be "in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Parker is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently "in common use," and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the 2nd Amendment should not attempt to link each and every weapon to the militia — except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

Significantly, the 2nd Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship — some from prominent liberals — that recognizes the 2nd Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

Considering the text, purpose, structure and history of our Constitution, and the clear weight of legal scholarship, it's time for the Supreme Court to revitalize the 2nd Amendment, which has lain dormant for nearly seven decades.


Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute

[olevetonahill]

Ive gots to jet
Ill read that later . Hell I may give ya some green , I doubt it But I may :D

[TUSooner]

Game on.
The Court granted cert in this case, which goes under the name plaintff, Heller (not Parker - was Parker another pltff?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?hp

By the way, that Levy guy Juan quoted is the money behind Heller.

EDIT:
The name of the case in the Sup Ct is "Dictrict of Columbia v. Heller."

Parker is one of the original plaintiffs who challenged the DC law.

[TUSooner]

My legal $.02 (nothing original here):
The question is not really whether the Framers meant it as an individual right or a "militia" right, because back in the 1780s it was essentially the same thing. OTOH, I'm pretty sure most of them would not have dreamed of disarming individuals, 'cept really bad guys.
This will be an interesting debate, despite all the distorted logic that's already appeared around here.

[Jerk]

I read about this Levy guy.

Doesn't even own a gun. Never has. Doesn't want to.

He's just some big libertarian from Florida with money.

[Jerk]

My legal $.02 (nothing original here):
The question is not really whether the Framers meant it as an individual right or a "militia" right, because back in the 1780s it was essentially the same thing. OTOH, I'm pretty sure most of them would not have dreamed of disarming individuals, 'cept really bad guys.
This will be an interesting debate, despite all the distorted logic that's already appeared around here.
The Court you work for ruled in 1998 that the 2nd was an individual right in the Emmerson case. However, they ruled that this did not mean that regulations couldn't be placed on that right. I'll bet donuts to dummies that the SCOTUS does the same thing.

The distorted logic would be if they ruled that it did not apply to 'the people' when all of the Bill of Rights clearly does, save the 10th amendment where it specifically spells out a state right.

Another wager I'll make is that the fight between gun control and gun rights will go on just like it has for the past 40 years no matter what the SCOTUS rules.

When the cops have a 30 second response time to a 911 call, then I will concede that the 2nd has out-grown its usefulness. (acutally, i don't think the 2nd amendment was really about crime...and it certainly wasn't about hunting)

[Vaevictis]

Another wager I'll make is that the fight between gun control and gun rights will go on just like it has for the past 40 years no matter what the SCOTUS rules.

Whichever way they rule, the other side is going to try to overturn it by some combination of:

1. Court packing
2. Amendment

Same ****, different topic.

[JohnnyMack]

Common sense always seems to fly out the window when the topic of guns and gun control comes out to play.

[1stTimeCaller]

you shut your whore mouth

[Jerk]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/663979,CST-EDT-HUNT23.article

Open season on 2nd Amendment

November 23, 2007
BY STEVE HUNTLEY

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.

Second Amendment

What does that mean? Does an individual have a right to own guns, or is it only a collective privilege linked to military service?

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to tell us next spring, maybe ending a long-running dispute over an individual's right to keep firearms, or maybe lighting a match to a powder keg in the presidential election.

While gun control is a popular issue in major urban areas, it riles folks in other places, especially in states in the South, Southwest and West, but also rural areas elsewhere such as Downstate Illinois. National Democrats who once touted gun restrictions on the campaign trail believe that stance cost them elections and now shy away from it. Republicans articulate a strong Second Amendment protectionist position. A high court ruling against an individual's right to bear arms would inject the issue into the campaign and could blow up the Democrats' hopes of reclaiming the White House.

A decision in favor of an individual right could defuse a campaign issue but raise fears that gun-control laws could be swept from the books everywhere. But that kind of an impact is not likely.

First, the case the court accepted this week involves a gun law in a federal jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, not in a state. Second, interestingly, the amendment on guns is the only one that has not been ruled to apply to the states, notes Randy Barnett, a former Chicago prosecutor who is now a professor of legal theory at Georgetown University. During the Reconstruction Era, Barnett says, southern states seeking to keep arms out of the hands of newly freed African Americans won a court decision to that effect. But surely a success by the pro-gun side would eventually have the high court deciding whether it applied to the states, too.

Still, it's alarmist to assert that a decision against the D.C. ban on handguns, if enforced in the states, would spell the end of of all weapon control laws. True, a handgun ban like the one in Chicago would be endangered. But it would be outright prohibition on firearms, not sensible regulation, that would be invalidated by the court. Reasonable gun control measures such as background checks or restrictions on ownership by felons or the mentally ill are perfectly compatible with an individualist ruling.

Over the coming months, we will be hearing a lot from legal authorities and historians about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the context in which it was enacted. Why was the issue of possessing arms deemed by the Founders important enough to be incorporated in the Bill of Rights? Why was the militia language included?

The only time the high court addressed the issue was in 1939, when it said a bootlegger using a sawed-off shotgun was not what the Founders intended in guaranteeing weapons for a militia. In other words, the amendment doesn't protect illegal activity. Asked about that ruling during his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts took the reasonable position that the court had sidestepped the issue of whether there is an individual right to own a gun.

The debate will show some interesting mental gymnastics by the opposing camps. Liberals who have long argued for the most expansive interpretation of the Constitution-- for instance, to find a "right of privacy" allowing abortion, will demand the strictest reading of the Second Amendment. Conservative strict constructionists, on the other hand, will be trying to find a way to minimize the militia language.

The proponents of an individual right would seem to have the best argument. The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" are clearly the meat of the amendment. The militia language comes in a subordinate clause. More fundamentally, the Bill of Rights is about protecting the prerogatives of the individual. Why should this one amendment be the exception?

[JohnnyMack]

you shut your whore mouth

Your mouth. It's so pretty.

[Jerk]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010902

Is the Second Amendment an individual, or collective, right?

Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.

That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say.

However, it is true that, despite our vitriolic policy fights over gun control, the Supreme Court has rarely ruled on the Second Amendment. The Court last spoke in detail in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, involving a bootlegger who claimed the right to transport an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. That opinion was sufficiently complicated that both sides now claim it as a precedent.

The dispute arises from the first four words of the Second Amendment, the full text of which 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." If the first two clauses were omitted, there would be no room for ambiguity. But part of the legal controversy has centered around what a "well regulated militia" means.

Judge Silberman's opinion argued, with convincing historical evidence, that the "militia" the Framers had in mind was not the National Guard of the present, but referred to all able-bodied male citizens who might be called upon to defend their country. The notion that the average American urbanite might today go to his gun locker, grab his rifle and sidearm and rush, Minuteman-like, to his nation's defense might seem quaint. But at stake is whether the "militia" of the Second Amendment is some small, discreet group of people acting under government control, or all of us.

The phrase "the right of the people" or some variation of it appears repeatedly in the Bill of Rights, and nowhere does it actually mean "the right of the government." When the Bill of Rights was written and adopted, the rights that mattered politically were of one sort--an individual's, or a minority's, right to be free from interference from the state. Today, rights are most often thought of as an entitlement to receive something from the state, as opposed to a freedom from interference by the state. The Second Amendment is, in our view, clearly a right of the latter sort.

As a practical matter on the Court, the outcome in D.C. v. Heller might well be decided by one man: Anthony Kennedy, the most protean of Justices. However, in recent years he has also been one of the most aggressive Justices in asserting any number of other rights to justify his opinions on various social issues. It would seriously harm the Court's credibility if Justice Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing now turned around and declared the right "to keep and bear arms" a dead letter because it didn't comport with their current policy views on gun control. This potential contradiction may explain why no less a liberal legal theorist than Harvard's Laurence Tribe has come around to an "individual rights" understanding of the Second Amendment.

By the way, a victory for gun rights in Heller would not ban all gun regulation, any more than the Court's support for the First Amendment bars every restraint on free speech. The Supreme Court has allowed limits on speech inciting violence or disrupting civil order. In the same way, a judgment that the Second Amendment is an individual right could allow reasonable limits on gun use, such as to protect public safety.

Here's hoping the Justices will put aside today's gun control passions and look to the plain language of the Bill of Rights for instruction in this case, as Judge Silberman had the courage to do.

[Okla-homey]

For me, it's simple. It's an individual right.

First, read Article Seven of the Articles of Confederation. Then read the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The different language used is starkly different and I believe for good reason. The drafters of the 2d did not want gun rights tied to a collective right as may be legitimately imputed in Article 7 of the Articles.

Although I doubt this Court will declare gun rights a "fundamental right" which would require governmental regulation to pass "strict scrutiny" by the Court (i.e. the regulation would have to be "narrowly tailored" in support of some "compelling government purpose.")

I should hope it will be found to be something close so local and state governements can't make laws which infringe on gun rights willy-nilly based on any "rational basis" they can trump-up.

My con law prof. called that intermediate level of scrutiny "semi-strict scrutiny."

[Jerk]

Homey - Parker could also use the 9th Amendment, but I haven't read anything that suggest they will.

It was a dirty lib who suggested that one to me.

For me, it boils down to this: how can the BoR spell out all of these individual rights and then convey a government right in the 2nd one? The people, persons, etc, doesn't mean government, and if it does, then is free speech a 'collective right' too? 'Keep' and 'bare' are key words, also.

[Okla-homey]

Homey - Parker could also use the 9th Amendment, but I haven't read anything that suggest they will.

It was a dirty lib who suggested that one to me.

For me, it boils down to this: how can the BoR spell out all of these individual rights and then convey a government right in the 2nd one? The people, persons, etc, doesn't mean government, and if it does, then is free speech a 'collective right' too? 'Keep' and 'bare' are key words, also.

you mean "bear" ;)

[Jerk]

you mean "bear" ;)

no, I mean't bare, like bare breast, man!

[Okla-homey]

no, I mean't bare, like bare breast, man!

I'm generally a great supporter of bare breasts. Because of that, my friends call me "bra."