Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found

Human Events ^ | 15 March 2007 | Mac Johnson

[Kudsman]

Wow. Just great news bookmark bump.

[tpaine]

I imagine if at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, someone had mentioned a parking lot, the writers would have asked "What in the hell is a parking lot?"

Exactly. -- Can you imagine a 'businessman' in the 1800's telling his employees they couldn't have weapons out in their buggies or at the company stable?

[indthkr]

2nd Amendment bump for later...

[Ken H]

Further, if you read the Court's opinion, you will find that the District of Columbia is not a State, so the Bill of Rights does not even apply! I'm not making this up.

Was that from the majority, or was it from the dissenting judge?

[El Gato]

But until the Supreme Court gets off their cowardly craven ass and addresses the 2nd Amendment (not just one particular case)

The Surpreme Court will deal with it one particular case at a time. That's the way they work. This case is unusual, for a second amendment case, in that the laws were allowed to be challenged without someone violating them and risking prision, and lifetime loss of their RKBA (not that DC residents had much left, but they could always move out of the District).

If the Supreme Court should hear an appeal by the DC government (want to bet all the gun grabbers are urging them behind the scenes not to appeal?), and uphold the ruling, then that ruling becomes effective nationwide. Thus the net gun control law going to court need not go all the way to Supreme Court, since the District court will be bound by the SC's decision. State laws are an exception to that, since it will first have to be established, by the Supreme Court, that the second amendment applies against state action as well. Since most states have similar RKBA language, and don't enforce it , even though the "militia only" or "states rights" arguments don't logically apply, don't expect positive results on that anytime soon.

[El Gato]

Most people don't understand that they already legally a member of the militia if they fit those criteria (male, a citizen, aged 17-45, not a member of the military, and for ladies, if a member of the National Guard).

Congress is given the power organize the militia, not define who is in it. Otherwise they could define it to include only the null set.

The states each define it differently, in Texas it's all citizens, and residents who have declared the intention to become citizens, over 18 and under 60, save a few public officials. That most definitely includes the ladies.

[El Gato]

They see the Second Amendment as restricting their rights rather than giving them rights.

It does neither, it protects their pre-existing rights. Big difference. The right would exist even if there were no second amendment to protect it. The very grammar of the Second Amendment assumes that the right exists. "the right of the people to ..., shall not be infringed" not "the people shall have the right to .."

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[Artemis Webb]

"The Supreme Court will deal with it one particular case at a time. That's the way they work."

I hate to lay some praise on the very liberal Warren court. But they were the last ones to see that cases had impact larger than the litigants themselves. The problem is they overcompensated on so many things, from abortion to criminal rights. The Burger and Rehnquist courts seemed to love taking a limited view of things, almost as though SCOTUS was an appeals court.

I'm no expert on either SCOTUS or the 2nd Amendment (nor should I have to be). I'm not in the NRA. I don't own a gun. But it seems to me that the court has an opportunity here to clarify a HUGE issue. I appreciate what you are saying about the process via the states. I just honestly don't have any faith in the Court to rule in any kind of sweeping way.

[El Gato]

I expect the same infamous "Title IX" which created thousands of silly scholarship-funded intercollegiate sports teams for women, would override the gender distinctions in that definition of the militia.

You'd be wrong, title IX is very limited in it's application, basically to educational instituttions which receive federal funds. There are other laws that apply to various groups and organizations, but not to the definition of the militia.

[El Gato]

I imagine if at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, someone had mentioned a parking lot, the writers would have asked "What in the hell is a parking lot?"

Sure, but they'd have known what a livery stable or hitching post was. Then the question would be could an employer prohibit someone from having a horse pistol on their saddle if the horse was tied up, or corralled, on the property of the business.

[SoCal Pubbie]

It is my understanding that saloons would often prohibit guns on the premises, and in some cases sheriffs would do the same for the whole town.

[ccmay]

Folks, if you have a hard time understanding the language of the Second Amendment, there is an easy way to parse it. Imagine that it referred to books instead of guns:

"A well-informed electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Clearly "the electorate" is a subset of "the people", but this does not limit the right to read books only to registered voters.

-ccm

[JSteff]

".....Clearly "the electorate" is a subset of "the people", but this does not limit the right to read books only to registered voters...."

Excellent clarity. Good job.

[lentulusgracchus]

Well regulated did NOT mean, at that time, that numerous bureaucratic hoops had to be jumped through to own a weapon. This seems to be the attitude of the anti-gunners amongst us now, but there's no historical support for that theory.

The liberals have usually brushed those difficulties aside by citing the "that was then but this is now" clause. Which isn't in the Constitution and is a con man's line, but hey, you have to do what you have to do.

Seriously, folks, don't start celebrating yet. If Hildebeast gets anointed in 2009, believe me, there are some Supremes who will take their cue from the election and read that Second Amendment however Hillary wants it. Baked, boiled, or fried -- you'll still be able to stick a fork in it.

[smoketree]

Actually from what I've read is the term well regulated also meant well equipped and that the equipment was in good working order. It was of no use if a militia was formed with inadequate and poorly maintained arms.

[Tunehead54]

Bump!

[Old Landmarks]

Horrors! School prayer is right around the corner!

Horrors!
A return to almost four hundred years of perfectly legal school prayer is right around the corner.

[Jeff Gordon]

Interesting observation.

[sig226]

U.S. v. Miller really doesn't say that. It says that there was no evidence submitted at appeal to show that a shotgun with a barrel of 18" or less has some relation to a well regulated militia. Had the court not been so cowed by the scumbag FDR, they might have read the National Firearms Act, and seen that the actual military was exempt from its rules. That should have resolved the issue without further debate.