A Clean Shot

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in DC v. Heller, perhaps the most important Second Amendment case in the history of the world. The decision is expected in June. The justices will seek to answer, in their own words

Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code secs. 7 2502.02(a)(4), 22 4504(a), and 7 2507.02 -- violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

Those "provisions" virtually ban handguns and require that long guns be stored in non-functioning states. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals answered that question with a resounding "yes it's unconstitutional."

If a reminder is needed, the amendment in question 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."

The biggest question is whether the Supreme Court will confirm the 2nd Amendent as an individual right, and affirm that one of the reasons for its existance is self defense.

If they do that, we win the rest. It may take time, but self defense is the stake in the heart of “gun control”. Once self defense is admitted as a legitimate argument, the anti freedom forces lose. That is why, in every other country where gun control has been imposed, self defense is never, ever, allowed to be mentioned in the arguments.

It is *always* framed as a “hobbyist vs safety” issue. Never as a “self defense vs anything” issue.

I’ve posted this before, but since it’s the best 2nd amend. argument, I’ve ever heard, I figured one more time wouldn’t hurt. Excerpt from an article I found on the web, by Rick Lynch entitled “A Sure-Fire Arugment on the 2nd Amendment.”

The Bill of Rights, then, as any history book will confirm, came into being to satisfy the single most suspicious, vociferous, and relentless foes of the new federal government.
That is the all-important context in which the Bill of Rights was created. The Anti-Federalists, men filled to varying degrees with fear, mistrust, and loathing of the new federal government, insisted on a bill of rights as additional shackles imposed on that new government. Knowing this alone, knowing that the famous Bill exists only to please those most apprehensive of the new government, definitively ends any confusion or debate surrounding the meaning of the Second Amendment.
There is simply no way on Earth the Anti-Federalists would have surrendered to the new and mistrusted government the right to own any gun they wanted at any time they wanted in any number they wanted.
To believe differently, to believe that the Second Amendment actually gives the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, one must believe the absolutely unbelievable. One must believe that the Anti-Federalists, fearing and loathing federal power, compelled Madison to compose this laundry list of rights, this list of things over which the government was to have no authority, and very near the very top of the list, these people in fear of the federal government desired a clause that reads, “Despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 prohibits you federal government people from infringing on our firearms rights, we hereby correct that mistake and surrender to you a right which we previously held, but wish now to give away.”
We must further believe that James Madison was such a monumentally incompetent and abysmal writer that, when trying to give the federal government this new authority to regulate the private ownership of firearms, the last fourteen words of the amendment read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
We must also believe that revolutionary American history conceals some hitherto unknown and utterly undocumented groundswell of public desire for gun control.
Picture in your mind for a moment the rough-and-tumble individualist who gave birth to this nation, a man who had tamed a wilderness, fought Indian wars on and off for 180 years, and successfully faced down the world’s mightiest empire. Hold a picture of that man in your head for a moment and then try to imagine him being told that this new federal government would have the power to regulate his ownership of firearms in any manner it saw fit, including imprisoning him for possession of any firearm for any reason at any time.
No honest or serious man could ever claim to believe that any part of the American electorate desired federal gun control, let alone the Anti-Federalists who forced the creation of the Bill of Rights.

I would agree that the Second Amendment pretty clearly says that the federal government cannot abridge the citizens rights to bear arms, but I think the more difficult question for the Court is going to be—what arms? Back in Revolutionary times, the arms that a private citizen might buy and use were basically the same that the military would use. But a 30.06 doesn’t compare to a RPG, or to a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile. Somewhere, somehow, the Court is going to have to decide where you draw the line as to what a citizen can buy.

I would also suggest that we should object just as strongly when the government oversteps its bounds with regards to the other amendments in our Bill of Rights. I just don’t see the same level of outrage over the loss of right to trial by jury, habeas corpus, right to an attorney, search and seizure protections, and so on...

Back in Revolutionary times, the arms that a private citizen might buy and use were basically the same that the military would use. But a 30.06 doesn’t compare to a RPG, or to a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile. Somewhere, somehow, the Court is going to have to decide where you draw the line as to what a citizen can buy.

The private citizens of that era in full legal possesion of warships called "privateers" outfitted with the same "guns" as Navy vessels of the time, would tend to disagree with your assesment. It WAS in fact perfectly legal to own and bear any weapon available at the time. The only restrictions were, and should still be, the financial ability to purchase and maintain them.

Rights are God given, and were enumerated in the Bill of Rights for a reason. It is not the government's right; neither federal, state or local, to restrict our rights because some people abuse them.

Somewhere, somehow, the Court is going to have to decide where you draw the line as to what a citizen can buy.

This is easy. The arms of an ordinary infantryman, the pistol and assault rifle, are protected. More exotic weapons not carried by the common soldier on the march, because they are particularly destructive, require specialty training, and/or are served by a crew of soldiers, are not protected.

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

-ccm

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.