Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms
realclearpolitics.com ^ | March 20, 2007 | Pierre Atlas

Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem

On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional. The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."

It is quite likely that this ruling will be appealed to Supreme Court, which hasn't offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment since 1939.

Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."

The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."

But actually, to argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is a reinterpretation of the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.

One of the major concerns of the anti-Federalists during the debate over the Constitution in 1787 was the fact that the new document lacked a Bill of Rights. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the framers promised to pass a Bill of Rights during the First Congress as amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms became part of that package.

What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Was the right to bear arms a collective right for militias, or an individual right for all citizens? The "Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority," from the debates of 1787, is telling. This document speaks...

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-734 next last
This is an extremely well written decision.

How do you limit a right that shall not be infringed?

1 posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:16 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."

Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are acknowledged to be preexisting.

2 posted on 03/20/2007 4:07:25 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Here, let me translate the Washington Post for true Americans...

Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give the true American meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every unconstitutional gun control law on the books."

3 posted on 03/20/2007 4:08:33 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I sure am glad we have the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia there to explain plain english for us. I won't be completely satisfied, however, until the Supreme Court explains to everybody that the word 'bear' means carry, not own. Could you imagine Thomas Jefferson paying money to the government for the right to conceal his weapon on his person?


4 posted on 03/20/2007 4:10:05 PM PDT by Hambone02 (NEW-DUNC '08 !!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."

Of course the 2nd Amendment is about individual citizens. Why would they have needed to amend the Constitution to allow our military to bear arms?

5 posted on 03/20/2007 4:11:31 PM PDT by Cooking101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
They're mad because their interpretation, which has patently nothing to do with the framer's intent, or the actual meaning of the constitution, is now going back to what every American knew it meant for the first 150 years of this nation's existance.

The Washington Post's interpretation along with Hand Gun Inc.'s and every other gun grabber, has everything to do with literally changing the constitution away from the Free Republic it was intended to be, and into the socio-marxist construct they want to replace it with...which is exactly why the second amendment was enumerated in the first place, and which is exactly what they fear.

They know it, and we know it.

6 posted on 03/20/2007 4:12:35 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4


7 posted on 03/20/2007 4:13:48 PM PDT by Dick Bachert (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb protesting the vote."
--Benjamin Franklin
8 posted on 03/20/2007 4:14:21 PM PDT by South40 (Amnesty for ILLEGALS Is A Slap In The Face To The USBP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

ping


9 posted on 03/20/2007 4:15:44 PM PDT by bamahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.


10 posted on 03/20/2007 4:22:54 PM PDT by Sender (Try to look unimportant; they may be low on ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yes it does. If you don't understand the 2nd Amendment you don't understand America. Some understand the 2nd A. and want it gone. That tells you exactly what they're about.


11 posted on 03/20/2007 4:26:06 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hambone02
Could you imagine Thomas Jefferson paying money to the government for the right to conceal his weapon on his person?

I am unaware of any evidence from the 18th Century that there was ever any claimed right for people to carry concealed armaments. However, in today's world, the right to carry arms, combined with the fact that open carry will usually result in harassment, would imply a right to carry concealed.

12 posted on 03/20/2007 4:28:04 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

As a strong second Amendment supporter, I would agree with your last sentence, however where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers? Are citizens to be allowed these as well? I don't have an answer, and am actually asking the question. I think that "small arms" as in rifles and handguns, even machine guns should be our right to own. Should we have NO limits? That might require a level of perfection in personal responsibility humans are not capable of.


13 posted on 03/20/2007 4:29:40 PM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cooking101
Prior to this ruling, every lower federal circuit court in every lower federal circuit court case (save one) has ruled a "collective" right -- ie., an individual RKBA as part of a state Militia. The second amendment was to protect the ability of the states to form state Militias from federal interference.

Your individual RKBA is protected by your state constitution. Which is why gun laws (eg., concealed carry) vary from state to state.

Think about it. If the second amendment protected that right, the laws would have to be the same in each state, would they not?

14 posted on 03/20/2007 4:30:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Also, the first three words of the Constintution, "We the People..." establish this Constitution. It would be ridiculous for We the People to not give us (the people) the rights in the Bill of Rights. If not us (the people), then which people?

-PJ

15 posted on 03/20/2007 4:30:32 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"How do you limit a right that shall not be infringed?"

Easy. The same way Congress passes legislation restricting speech when the first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make NO law ..."

16 posted on 03/20/2007 4:33:57 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I am unaware of any evidence from the 18th Century that there was ever any claimed right for people to carry concealed armaments.

You are absolutely right. The right was not claimed; it was assumed. In the 18th Century, with people walking around with swords on their belts, the right to carry weapons was not controversial.

17 posted on 03/20/2007 4:36:06 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Prior to this ruling, every lower federal circuit court in every lower federal circuit court case (save one) has ruled a "collective" right -- ie., an individual RKBA as part of a state Militia. The second amendment was to protect the ability of the states to form state Militias from federal interference.

I'm always thrilled when gun grabbers make really blatant errors. So "the people" in the 1st Amendment is an individual right but in the 2nd Amendment "the people" is a collective right.  I have this really nice bridge that surely you'll be interested in buying.

You just shot yourself in the foot for the umpteenth time.

18 posted on 03/20/2007 4:37:17 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
"where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers?"

That would be up to each state, given that the states are charged with forming state Militias. If Congress prohibits 155mm howitzers, the states can appeal to the courts, saying that it infringes on their Militia.

"Are citizens to be allowed these as well?"

Again, that's up to each state. If the state wants its citizens to take certain weapons home or store some of the larger ones in an armory, that's up to each state. It is not the federal government's business.

19 posted on 03/20/2007 4:40:32 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sender
I believe that the left will redefine the other amendments with the new meaning of "the people" to mean collective, as they wish to with the second. The Communists also seem to have used the collective interpretation as I remember. Coincidence?
20 posted on 03/20/2007 4:45:32 PM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Zon
"So "the people" in the 1st Amendment is an individual right but in the 2nd Amendment "the people" is a collective right."

Given the prefatory clause of the second amendment (which is missing from the first amendment, thereby making a comparison between the two amendments ludicrous), "the people" in the second amendment is an individual right applied collectively.

According to the gun grabbing courts.

Why isn't concealed carry legal in every state if the second amendment protects that right?

21 posted on 03/20/2007 4:47:49 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

That is a really good point.


22 posted on 03/20/2007 4:48:55 PM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Given the prefatory clause of the second amendment (which is missing from the first amendment, thereby making a comparison between the two amendments ludicrous), "the people" in the second amendment is an individual right applied collectively.

If you read Alexander Hamilton's writing in the Federalist (compiled by me and posted on this FR topic) on his interpretation of the militia and the people and the right to bear arms, you see that he envisioned the militia as something that might meet once or twice a year, and only for the purpose of regulating (minimal training to act as a unit).

Therefore, I'm saying that the original intent of "well regulated" was to have minimal training to act as a unit, and "militia" was the population-at-large. It's a stretch to say that it's a collective right applied individually when the collective would only meet once or twice a year, and the people "keep" their own arms instead of them being stored in some collective armory only to be gotten and used when the militia is called out.

-PJ

23 posted on 03/20/2007 4:57:34 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

It seems that many if not most state's constitutions go into much more detail as to the "individual" right to keep and bear arms. So with that in mind then how can the Federal Government be MORE restrictive if the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution is to express the STATE right to individual arms? It would seem any firearms laws passed by congress EVER would then be unconstitutional?


24 posted on 03/20/2007 5:03:16 PM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Actually our old friend the 14th amendment states that no state shall deny any citizen of the US any rights or privileges enjoyed by any other citizen. This is largely ignored however. If DC cant ban guns how can any state. The laws must be uniform from state to state as required by the constitution amdt 14.If SCOTUS upholds this decision, I hope some one brings a suit based on the 14th
barbra ann
25 posted on 03/20/2007 5:06:27 PM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Easy. The same way Congress passes legislation restricting speech when the first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make NO law ..."

The SCOTUS has reversed itself before. I believe that error will be corrected, at the very least the 30 days prior to a primary election and the 60 days prior to a general election restrictions. Have you read the D.C. Circuit Court's decision?

26 posted on 03/20/2007 5:10:19 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Actually, it was common place for a man to carry his pistol under his coat at the end of the 18th century. Also, at the time, before lawyers started unraveling our constitution and reinterpreting plain English, bear simply meant bear (to carry). Outside of your coat or inside of your coat, had our founding fathers not intended for us to bear concealed arms, I believe they would have said so. They were foolish enough, however, to actually believe people beyond their years would take their simple English at its meaning (their only mistake). Now we have the problems we have today with multiple interpretations of the second amendment.
27 posted on 03/20/2007 5:10:52 PM PDT by Hambone02 (NEW-DUNC '08 !!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Not according to the 14th Amendment.
barbra ann


28 posted on 03/20/2007 5:11:15 PM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
From the article;

"Is the right to bear arms a collective right or an individual right? The answer, according to this document and the writings of others at the time of the founding, is both. "

A point I have tried to make here a few times.

29 posted on 03/20/2007 5:11:41 PM PDT by labette (To hit the ball and touch 'em all. A moment in the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Actually, it was common place for a man to carry his pistol under his coat at the end of the 18th century. Also, at the time, before lawyers started unraveling our constitution and reinterpreting plain English, bear simply meant bear (to carry). Outside of your coat or inside of your coat, had our founding fathers not intended for us to bear concealed arms, I believe they would have said so. They were foolish enough, however, to actually believe people beyond their years would take their simple English at its meaning (their only mistake). Now we have the problems we have today with multiple interpretations of the second amendment.
30 posted on 03/20/2007 5:11:59 PM PDT by Hambone02 (NEW-DUNC '08 !!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sender; Jeff Head
Exactly.

And, as Judge Silberman said in the DC decision, if people as smart as Madison and Adams wanted this to be only for militias, they would have said just that, and NOT added "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." End of story, we keep our guns.

31 posted on 03/20/2007 5:12:57 PM PDT by Pharmboy ([She turned me into a] Newt! in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Why isn't concealed carry legal in every state if the second amendment protects that right?

Because liberals don't care what the constitution says and are out to ban guns...as evidenced by their move in DC to ban them in homes.
32 posted on 03/20/2007 5:13:35 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Duncan Hunter in 2008! A Veteran, A Patriot, A Reagan Republican... http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
I'm simply stating what the second amendment protects from federal infringement.

"Therefore, I'm saying that the original intent of "well regulated" was to have minimal training to act as a unit, and "militia" was the population-at-large."

Well, according to the Militia Act of 1792, "militia" was "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years".

As far as an individual right to keep and bear arms, that was (and still is) up to each state. If a state wishes for arms to be kept at home, fine. If they want the arms kept in an armory, fine also. If a state wishes to limit its citizen's access to arms, that's up to them (assuming the state constitution allows it).

33 posted on 03/20/2007 5:20:19 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The current definition of "militia" is in Title 10, Section 311, and includes all males older than 17 and younger than 45, women who are in the National Guard (aka "organized militia" and persons who have prior military service to age 65.

I submit that the current definition is an unconstitutional limitation on the rights of women and older people, as the 14th Amendment gives to all citizens rights that can not be removed by the states, and to all persons (not just citizens or National Guard members) protection of due process of law. Prior restraint (condemnation before committing a crime) upon keeping and bearing arms is, to my mind, a violation of due process.


34 posted on 03/20/2007 5:27:20 PM PDT by donmeaker (The speed of light is 186,234 miles per second. Not just a good idea, its the LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If a state wishes for arms to be kept at home, fine. If they want the arms kept in an armory, fine also.

How does that contrast with the 2nd amendment phrase "the right of the people to keep" arms?

If "people" doesn't mean individual people, but a collective militia, does "keep" not really mean keep at home with the person? I get worried when I'm told that the plain language doesn't mean what it plainly says.

I interpret the right of the people to keep arms to mean that individual people have the right to own (and keep) arms with themselves. I do not interpret it to mean that they must be locked away in an armory only to be gotten by somebody else' permission. That doesn't sound like "keeping" to me.

-PJ

35 posted on 03/20/2007 5:32:24 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Given the prefatory clause of the second amendment (which is missing from the first amendment, thereby making a comparison between the two amendments ludicrous), "the people" in the second amendment is an individual right applied collectively.

LOL!! Your double-think is fooling only you. The first amendment has a prefatory (2: located in front) of "the people". Your argument is sooo lame, and completely irrelevant.

You'd have readers of your post believe that the 2nd amendment was necessary to ensure that men going into battle (the militia) would have guns because without the second amendment they would have gone into battle without guns. 

Why isn't concealed carry legal in every state if the second amendment protects that right?

Because, just like you, many politicians and bureaucrats disregard the original meaning of the constitution. In violation of the 2nd amendment they made it illegal to conceal carry. Your question presupposes that State and federal politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't and don't violate individual rights and create unconstitutional laws.

The fourteenth amendment was for the most part specifically to allow blacks to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, in self-defense. From the article:

 "The statement of February 28, 1866 by Nevada Senator James Nye was fairly typical: "As citizens of the United States they [black persons] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."" 

"The understanding that the Second Amendment applied to individual citizens was reiterated during the 1866 Congressional debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill and the proposed Fourteenth Amendment.

"The Radical Republicans wanted to apply all the Bill of Rights protections to the recently freed former slaves in the South, America's newest citizens. The "freedmen," as they were called, needed the right to bear arms in particular in order to defend themselves against the white night-riders who were terrorizing the black population.

"The statement of February 28, 1866 by Nevada Senator James Nye was fairly typical: "As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.""

36 posted on 03/20/2007 5:32:29 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."

Sounds good to me.

"right of the people and "shall not be infringed" is pretty strong language, with very little wiggle room for any sort of "gun control" that applies to otherwise law abiding peaceable citizens.

All it would take is for the Supreme Court to hear and uphold this decision, and federal gun control, other than that which affects convicted felons and such, is gone, including the National Firearms Act. One more ruling, on a state level gun control law, declaring that the second is "incorporated" against state and local infringement as well (being fundamental to ordered liberty), and poof, state and local gun control is also gone the way of the passenger pigeon.

Of course all that should have occurred in beginning in 1939 or so.

37 posted on 03/20/2007 5:35:24 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

My homeowners association would probably never let me have a howitzer unless I kept it inside my garage.


38 posted on 03/20/2007 5:36:56 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cooking101
Why would they have needed to amend the Constitution to allow our military to bear arms?

The militia is not the military, any more than the posse is the sheriff or police. Both are US, that is "the people".

39 posted on 03/20/2007 5:37:30 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hambone02

Very good point - the thought that you would have to file papers an pay to carry a weapon would cause old Tom to turn in his grave.


40 posted on 03/20/2007 5:37:37 PM PDT by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
First of all, the second amendment (whatever it means) only applies to the federal government. In other words, the federal government (Congress) may not write laws which infringe on the second amendment. States are free to do so, provided they don't violate their state constitution.

As you said, most states protect an individual RKBA in their state constitution -- I believe six states have no RKBA protection, however.

Gun laws passed by Congress are done so under the power of the Commerce Clause, regulating (prohibiting) the interstate commerce of certain guns. I'm not aware that these laws have recently been challenged as violating the second amendment -- the last time was 70 years ago in US v Miller.

41 posted on 03/20/2007 5:38:48 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
...where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers? Are citizens to be allowed these as well? I don't have an answer, and am actually asking the question. I think that "small arms" as in rifles and handguns, even machine guns should be our right to own. Should we have NO limits? That might require a level of perfection in personal responsibility humans are not capable of.

I would think that since the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right,it would also indicate that the phrase refers to weapons that could be used by an individual,rather than a crew served weapons system.

42 posted on 03/20/2007 5:45:42 PM PDT by oldsalt (There's no such thing as a free lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
"If DC cant ban guns how can any state."

The District is not a state.

Some Judges decided to get cute, but the language will be nuanced as ever, as it suits the leftist zanies.

Nothing will change.

43 posted on 03/20/2007 5:45:46 PM PDT by Radix (Time served in the Congress should be reason enough to disallow a person from the Presidency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new the original and dangerous correct meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."

There, fixed it.

44 posted on 03/20/2007 5:48:33 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
However, in today's world, the right to carry arms, combined with the fact that open carry will usually result in harassment, would imply a right to carry concealed.

Harassment by whom? If the right to bear arms were affirmed and the second amendment held to apply to state and local governments as well, the police would be sured, or worse, for deprivation of civil rights, or worse, if they harassed law abiding citizens exercising that right.

Now if it is fellow citizens (or illegal aliens for that matter" that are harassing you for openly bearing arms, well there are lots of remedies for that. The final one being the use of those arms to protect your person.

There is a long history of regulating the bearing of concealed weapons, that AFAIK, goes back to colonial times and continued right through the period of ratification of the Second Amendment, along with its counterparts in state constitutions. Pretty much the same argument that was used in "Miller", that the military or the militia don't bear arms concealed, that is the practice of highwaymen and other ner do wells. Of course the rulings in state courts that upheld those laws, there being no such federal law even today, were in states whose RKBA provision differed from that in the second amendment in various ways. Some had "for the common defense" or words to that effect, which by the "only criminals need to carry concealed" reasoning combined with the "not common defense" argument allowed for such rulings. In fact the federal Supreme Court cited one such ruling in the "Miller" decision, even though there is no such "common defense" limitation in the Second Amendment.

But I agree that a prohibition, or the requirement for a permit, to bear arms concealed is an infringement of the individual right to bear arms.

45 posted on 03/20/2007 5:48:51 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; Wildbill22; Pharmboy

The paragraph I posted was cut directly out of the DC decision. It's about as clear and cut-and-dried as I have ever seen. Too bad for the hoplophobes ;)


46 posted on 03/20/2007 5:49:32 PM PDT by Sender (Try to look unimportant; they may be low on ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
"Actually our old friend the 14th amendment states that no state shall deny any citizen of the US any rights or privileges enjoyed by any other citizen"

Well, you're smashing two things together.

Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Not "rights".

The 14th amendment created a small "c" -- "citizen of the United States" -- and extended to those citizens certain privileges and immunities that came with national citizenship. Not "rights".

The 14th then said that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

47 posted on 03/20/2007 5:50:15 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Don't feed the Troll!

Correct any misstatements of fact, but don't argue principals or rights with it.

48 posted on 03/20/2007 5:50:38 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

however where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers?

A bullet is discriminate in that it's trajectory has an intended target that is relatively small. A nuclear weapon is indiscriminate and the target area is a billion times larger. The howitzer falls in-between. Take each of the three weapons and suppose an accident happened in a building (a person's home). If each weapon accidentally fired what is the likely damage to neighbors? The gun is almost nil. The howitzer has some potential to explode beyond the house. The nuclear weapon would take out a couple dozen city blocks.

49 posted on 03/20/2007 5:52:06 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Have you read the D.C. Circuit Court's decision?"

I'm on page 2. I keep getting interrupted by every FReeper on this board asking me every day if I've read it.

50 posted on 03/20/2007 5:52:29 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-734 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson