Did you say something about taking his arms away?
Posted on 12/07/2006 11:58:08 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Scope of 2nd Amendment's questioned
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on high-powered weapons.
In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Never going to happen.
"Letters of Marque were not required to be held prior to arming a ship"
You are absolutely right but if one uses said arms without a letter, one was a pirate. The argument was that cannon were covered by the second because one had to have cannon to have an effective privateer under another section of the Constitution, the section authorizing letters of marque.
I was trying to remind folk that the issue of a letter was a matter of government discretion. Any act that requires government permission to be legal is not a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and not an individual right at all.
The portion of the Constitution that allowed for letters of marque has nothing at all to do with the 2nd amendment or the intent of the 2nd.
Apples and oranges.
Another thing to note is that all thing s legal are not constitutional rights. While a ship owner might have a legal ability to arm his ship, he had not Constitutionally protected right to do so uner the 2nd amendment.
This dichotomy between "the people" and "the militia" is a modern invention.
Dear Senator Feinstein:
My letter is in response to your offending remarks concerning the United Nations small arms conference and Mr. Ashcroft's Second Amendment interpretation. Specifically, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Why is it, that within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights, the rights of the "people" are interpreted, referring to the rights of "individuals", and yet, only within the Second Amendment, is the word "people", allegedly intended by our Founding Fathers to symbolize a collective or state right? If it is your position that the Second Amendment is addressing only a collective or state right, then, for the purposes of clarification and uniformity, we should immediate replace the words "people" and "persons" with the word "state", in all aforementioned Amendments.
Upon performing this minor alteration, we can all feel certain that our 50 states will be comforted in knowing that they now have a right to freely express their religious beliefs.
And, perhaps, our state governments can now be secure in the knowledge that they are free to speak and peaceably assemble.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will certainly bring a sense of well being to our states.
Each state can rejoice in the understanding that they cannot be arrested without a warrant, to be issued only upon probable cause.
That the life, limb and property of each state cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
And, the state shall no longer be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against itself.
Each state can now eagerly anticipate the utterance of a police "Miranda" warning, prior to its arrest and prosecution.
Frankly, I think that it would be far easier to abolish the Ninth Amendment altogether, rather than explain why we believed it necessary to change its meaning from "Reserved rights to the people" to "Reserved rights to the state". A few mindful individuals might feel compelled to question this one.
Lastly, we must now proceed to erode the Tenth Amendment. The distortion of this Amendment is also quite simple. Henceforth, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, and back to the states again, where such powers shall remain". Not to worry, Senator Feinstein, as the Tenth Amendment will become quite confusing as a result of this proposed change, and most citizens haven't a clue as to what our Bill of Rights represent, I do not believe that many challenges will arise to cause you consternation.
In this light, I should imagine that anyone exhibiting even a trace of commonsense could not help but see the outlandishness of such semantic manipulations. But, in reality, this is precisely what politician, equal in craftiness to you, and disingenuous judiciaries have contrived for the Second Amendment, our principal defender of the Bill of Rights.
In a most illustrative example of governmental corruption and hypocrisy, which, to my knowledge, has never been challenged in a court of law, let us now examine the following scenario that everyone can easily comprehend. If a state or local government were to violate the civil rights of any individual (clearly defined and enumerated within the Bill of Rights), the federal government and courts would immediately admonish that offending state or city. Excluding, of course, the civil and unalienable individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the only Constitutional protection to be singled out for, state and local recognition or lack thereof, state interpretation, and unconstitutional state infringements. Whereas, the states are seldom permitted to infringe upon the civil rights contained within the remaining nine Amendments, they are encouraged by the federal government and courts to assault the principles of the Second Amendment. These legislative and judicial abuses are an outrage, yet, willfully and readily employed in every state within this nation.
Whether or not the majority of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this is a nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political correctness of Socialism, or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise. We are dependent upon "Constitutional Law" for such judgments. Not any individual (yourself included) or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which "Article or Amendment" is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its entirety.
The essence and intent of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, have most definitely ricocheted off your intellect. In presenting a conclusion of such vital principles, the void of honest scrutiny and practice should be of some concern to many. On the other hand, your accomplishments as an illusionist have not all been in vain or gone unnoticed. And, I must admit, that your skills as a puppeteer are masterful and unsurpassed. Your successful career of swaying the unwitting masses can further be attributed to an artful projection of mindless mob hysteria (i.e. Million Mom March). However, and sadly, I can only assume that you perceive man's eternal search for truth, as a challenge to be avoided at all costs. I suspect, that at this stage of your political career, many of your more enlightened constituents must be quite dispirited by their lack of ethical and effective representation. With talents such as yours, comes a few small sacrifices. Unfortunately, for your constituents.
For the continuance of U. S. Sovereignty and welfare of the citizenry, I shall suggest that women of your temperament should remain in the home, where damages resulting from a lack of conscience and integrity, can easily be confined to a single-family dwelling. As it now stands, nationally, you’re ambitious and misguided political efforts are placing our individual liberties and lives in peril, rendering you unfit to go out in public much less for any position of authority. Your several terms in office have revealed unimpeachable evidence that you are an emotionally immature and shallow person, an icon of senatorial arrogance. Your craftiness has promoted nothing less harmful than anger, chaos and a divided nation. The ambivalence that you have displayed towards our individual liberties, including the right of self-defense, is unforgivable. No, it is intolerable!
I am not so foolishly optimistic to believe that any individual will ever dissuade you from your follies. Although, the majority of voters have been overcome by a sense of hopelessness, I can at least be content by collaborating with those several thousands who are committed to exposing your subversive activities, through open letters such as this. Madam, you deserve no more comfort provided by the people. A vote of confidence must now be encouraged and organized by your California constituents, with the intent of dislodging your disloyal derriere from the coveted senatorial chair.
As a matter of form I bid you good day,
Author Unknown
"The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection."
I'll bet you these include black people who will never be included on a TV brief about this issue or invited to an NAACP conference.
Can't have any black folk going against the NAACP-approved stamp on the Dem's view of guns.
Right.
Go HERE
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm
to learn why DC is perhaps one of the most dangerous places in the country, not just for our freedoms or "money" but for our very physical beings. Only the cops and the bad guys have guns and the cops only show up AFTER the bad guys -- sometimes.
(The meat of the thing is around halfway down -- but all of it is fascinating and frightening reading.)
I don't think you make your case that cannons on a ship are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. That said, it's not worth a fight in this forum, and on an issue which apparently have at least some agreement.
If the government had the arms, why would it need individual citizens to be privateers? The same arms could go to the Navy. As to the Letters of Marque, it is very clear that until such Letters are issued, no war-like action by an individual is legal.
That's why cannon have been outlawed for civilian ownership since way, way back around .... 1960? Apparently the government was pretty slow to outlaw cannon; 170 years? (And even now, black powder cannons identical to those used during the Revolution are probably unregulated.)
Try to keep in mind that our Founders were criminal rebels at the time of our nations founding. They were operating completely outside the authority of the existing government. In order to eject the government's army and navy which had occupied Boston, these rebels took cannons by force of arms from existing government forces at Fort Ticonderoga and threatened the government's army and navy with destruction if it did not abandon the occupation of Boston.
The Second Amendment is intended to ensure that future generations, if justified in abolishing a tyrannical government, would not have to begin the effort by stealing arms from that government. They would have their own arms.
You'd think! These clowns like to hide things in BS and obfuscation though.
Actually, the 1st Amend is the only 1 that specifically states, "CONGRESS shall make no law....". I.e., it may only apply to the US level.
I've made this point many times; how can it be illegal to carry a gun in my truck if my right to do so can never be questioned?? My tagline is the answer...
Now the question here arises from the fact that the District of Columbia is not a state so it wouldn't have the same rights and being federal land I would think the 2nd Amendment would apply to those specifically within the district.
1966 with the passage of Gun COntrol '66 A day that will live forever in the annals of infamy.
Separate issue.
Dead Wrong. The 14th Amendment clearly applies the Bill of Rights to the States. If you had read the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment you could not say otherwise (and that is the appropriate legal source for interpretation). That some judges today limit the application of the Bill of Rights is an error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.