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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 721-734 next last
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]

To: robertpaulsen
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.

You're forgeting the Supremecy Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The states do not have the authority to overrule Constitutional privisions.

-PJ

51 posted on 03/20/2007 5:53:24 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hambone02

Many early gun cases involved concealed carry, which was illegal.


52 posted on 03/20/2007 5:54:45 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
The second amendment only applied to the federal government and still does. The 14th amendment had no effect on it.

I can cite a number of post-14th amendment cases where the court said that specifically.

53 posted on 03/20/2007 5:57:38 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
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.

And you are here to argue that power is superior to any right, individual or collective, including the right to keep and bear arms.

54 posted on 03/20/2007 5:57:47 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22
however where does the limit fall, with the extreme being tactical nuclear weapons or 155mm Howitzers? Are citizens to be allowed these as well?

We got along quite well with no limits, at the federal level anyway, from 1792 to 1934, actually longer since there were no "anti cannon" ordances under the Constitution before ratification of the Bill of Rights or under the Articles of Confederation before them.

People did own cannon, and ships armed with them, at the time the second amendment was written, how else could they be effective when issued a Letter of Marque by Congress (as Congress was empowered to do in the orginal body of the Constitution)?

The Cannon the British were after at Concord were not owned by the colony or the British government. The Revolutionary War started over Cannon Confiscation, or more properly attempted cannon confiscation. They did manage to spike one or two, but they were rather too hotly pursued by the local militias to try to haul them off.

So definnetly 155 Howitzers, or larger ones for that matter, are included in the term "arms", as are 16" Naval Rifles, if you can find any outside of a floating museum.

55 posted on 03/20/2007 5:58:43 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
First of all, the second amendment (whatever it means) only applies to the federal government.

First of all, why does the Second ammendment say "the right of the people" instead of "the right of the federal government" or 'the right of the several states". Are you saying the framers didn't choose language carefully?

Also, would you then be saying that nuclear weapons treaties are unconstitutional? That would be an infringement upon our government's right to keep and bare arms then wouldn't it? AN unconstitutional law passed by congress and signed into law by the Executive right?

Sorry RP, but that just defies common sense.

Have you ever heard of the unwritten understood "you"? I would offer to you that the Bill of Rights was so specifically an individual rights issue that the 'Individual' is understood in front of the Bill of Rights in the same way as 'you'.
56 posted on 03/20/2007 6:00:49 PM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Good point.


57 posted on 03/20/2007 6:02:46 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: oldsalt
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.

While an individual can't bear such a weapon, they can certainly keep them. They certainly did at the time of the formulation, passage and ratification of the Second Amendment. A naval gun crew, or a wheeled artillery piece would have a crew of about 5, depending on the exact weapon, although certainly a single person could operate a cannon, albeit at a very low rate of fire. That's not counting the support crew, such as the "powder monkeys" aboard ship, or the crew that handled the horses which moved the land based cannon around.

58 posted on 03/20/2007 6:04:29 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"How does that contrast with the 2nd amendment phrase "the right of the people to keep" arms?"

The second amendment protects this right from federal infringement only. The states are free to infringe, guided only by their state constitution. In Illinois, cities are allowed to actually prohinit the ownership of guns within city limits. Chicago, Wilmette, Morton Grove -- all prohibit handguns.

59 posted on 03/20/2007 6:08:42 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Let me know when you get to my post 51.

-PJ

60 posted on 03/20/2007 6:09:28 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 721-734 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