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

Skip to comments.

To Keep and Bear Arms
Washington Post ^ | March 22, 2008 | Charles Lane

Posted on 03/24/2008 12:30:11 PM PDT by neverdem

Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.

Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction's defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices debated what the framers of the Second Amendment intended. The members of the court did not mention Reconstruction. Yet during this period, we the people gave the Union a second "founding" through constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, granting blacks citizenship and enabling them...

--snip--

Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; heller; parker
Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, but they are doing really important work, writing summonses and raising revenue.

1 posted on 03/24/2008 12:30:11 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Common sense from the ComPost???

Are there pigs flying somewhere?


2 posted on 03/24/2008 12:33:14 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
3 posted on 03/24/2008 12:34:21 PM PDT by Redcloak (Yeah... Sure... McCain. Why not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Why not go back more recent. April 19,1993!


4 posted on 03/24/2008 12:34:25 PM PDT by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Read it again. Pigs resoundingly on terra firma.


5 posted on 03/24/2008 12:35:12 PM PDT by coloradan (The US is becoming a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

That statement is asinine. The police cannot protect you when someone is breaking into your home at 3 am, and they will tell you so.............

6 posted on 03/24/2008 12:36:21 PM PDT by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Haven’t there been court cases that said that the police are NOT responsible for an individual’s safety?


7 posted on 03/24/2008 12:36:22 PM PDT by quikdrw (Life is tough....it's even tougher if you are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What really needs to be studied is how this new republic reject finds a forum to spew his liberal tripe.


8 posted on 03/24/2008 12:36:48 PM PDT by ab01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

How is it possible for a person to write eight paragraphs of coherent historical discussion strongly supporting the need for the government to recognize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and then conclude with five sentences that directly contradict every point just made?

I guess only someone with a graduate degree in journalism can be that foolish.

On a side note, many of my state’s gun laws were enacted during Reconstruction to disarm blacks. Racist Democrats supported them then, and Democrats (who may still be racists) support them today. It’s just a little surprising to see an article in a major national newspaper that supports these gun laws even while explicitly acknowledging their racist purpose.


9 posted on 03/24/2008 12:38:47 PM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Check again. Although the article was common sense, the idiot author managed to force a conclusion exactly opposite of what the article stated.


10 posted on 03/24/2008 12:39:35 PM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It all depends on how any particular government agency chooses to define “reasonable and necessary.” I’m willing to bet their definition is a lot less 2nd Amendment friendly than I would be happy with.


11 posted on 03/24/2008 12:41:23 PM PDT by Hoffer Rand (Forget "Who is John Galt?" I want to know "Where is Galt's Gulch?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Not to mention that if I wanted to commit suicide, there’s dozens of ways to do it that have nothing to do with firearms.


12 posted on 03/24/2008 12:41:34 PM PDT by eclecticEel (oh well, Hunter 2012 anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"...An irresponsible press poses threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any First Amendment protections. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, urban dwellers are defenseless against a savage criminal class and the elite toffey-noses who, safe in their gated communities, demand that the lesser be disarmed and made into cattle..."
13 posted on 03/24/2008 12:46:16 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

More racebaiting from the Compost.


14 posted on 03/24/2008 12:47:00 PM PDT by beckysueb (Pray for our troops , America, and President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The police cannot protect you when someone is breaking into your home at 3 am...

Nope ... for that ya gotta call Hillary!.

15 posted on 03/24/2008 12:47:06 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: quikdrw
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
16 posted on 03/24/2008 12:47:47 PM PDT by Tree of Liberty (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The Eloi and the Morlocks..............


17 posted on 03/24/2008 12:48:24 PM PDT by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse."

What the author fails to mention is that the "white paramilitaries" in the Colfax Massacre were led by Columbus Nash and James Hadnot. Hadnot was a Democrat and a leader of the Knights of the White Camelia, a white separists group, often allied with the KKK.
18 posted on 03/24/2008 12:49:12 PM PDT by FortWorthPatriot (No better friend, no worse enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quikdrw
Haven’t there been court cases that said that the police are NOT responsible for an individual’s safety?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

I believe that is the last decision in a long line of them. To add insult to injury, felons can't be prosecuted for not registering their firearms.

Gun rights go to court

It pays to save your links.

19 posted on 03/24/2008 12:53:17 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb
Nice job of race-baiting by the Post.

Heller is about interpreting the 2nd Amendment, specifically an individual's right to own a handgun in the District of Columbia.

Nothing to do with racism, everything to do with the right to bear arms.

20 posted on 03/24/2008 12:54:47 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

> Check again. Although the article was common sense, the idiot author managed to force a conclusion exactly opposite of what the article stated.

Alternatively, perhaps an idiot editor didn’t like his conclusions and re-wrote the end of the article for him?


21 posted on 03/24/2008 12:57:10 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghill mi do dhuine. Fg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb

Yeah, what’s the point of this race-baiting?

To further indocrinate blacks and encourage them to further hate and attack whites? Like they haven’t been doing that for years. I’m sick of this “poor oppressed black” bullcrap.


22 posted on 03/24/2008 12:57:38 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Change.....that's what we will have left in our pockets if a Democrat gets elected president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

Nah, don't think so. Ever heard of a police artist? They're the guys who come out after a crime and draw those really neat chalk lines around the folks who waited on the cops to protect them.

23 posted on 03/24/2008 1:01:44 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Let's look at more recent history, such as 2005. According to the DOJ, there were 4,497 whites mudered by blacks vs 337 blacks murdered by whites in 2005. (we'll also ignore that whites and hispanics are lumped together in these stats). Similar ratios are present for all the years covered (1976-2005).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovracetab.htm

24 posted on 03/24/2008 1:09:17 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No...it don’t need to be relooked at. It was a different time and a different era. It has nothing to do with life as it is today. So give it a rest....let it go......get a life!!!


25 posted on 03/24/2008 1:11:22 PM PDT by Wavrnr10 (Eagles soar but weasels don't get sucked in jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.”

Check the founders’ context again. It was the militia at Lexington and Concord, a loose confederation of like-minded and equipped individuals. The overarching concept of the Second Amendment is defense against tyranny. It is the individual’s responsibility to be armed. It is the government’s responsibility do defend the country (calling on the militia if needed). That an armed society is more polite (criminals have less traction) is simply a joyous byproduct of individual taking on the responsibility of personal and familial defense.

“...a ship can get you work. A gun can help you keep your ship.”


26 posted on 03/24/2008 1:14:22 PM PDT by petro45acp (NO good endeavor survives an excess of "adult supervision" (read bureaucracy)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.”

Because all Americans live in cities today.

Oh, wait. They don’t.

My parents live less than a mile outside a city, and have had to wait several hours for law enforcement to tend to a wreck on the road in front of their house. Good thing nobody was breaking into their house.


27 posted on 03/24/2008 1:30:52 PM PDT by Tex Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

> Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
I haven’t had that good a laugh in a long while.
Nothing beats the 3 S’s (Shoot, Shovel and Shutup.)


28 posted on 03/24/2008 1:32:12 PM PDT by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

Did you see the story posted here last week, about a Covina CA woman who was killed by burglars, while she was on the phone begging the 911 operator for help?

29 posted on 03/24/2008 1:34:37 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“reasonable and necessary” is a cover for pretty much unlimited restriction in this case. Don’t grant the WP any Constitutional common sense.


30 posted on 03/24/2008 1:39:15 PM PDT by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.”

****

The entire Colfax incident that the writer recounts is one proof why people need to keep and bear arms. Then the writer contradicts the entire premiss of the article by the above-quoted statement.

Has human nature somehow changed or improved since the Colfax massacre? The massacred blacks had no access to police promptly arriving on the scene, but today we do...

What comes to my mind are the images of a local SWAT team waiting outside Columbine High School until the shooting stopped before taking “effective” action...


31 posted on 03/24/2008 1:48:47 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Professional Police?

Many departments BARELY require a GED for the police accademy!

Professional Police with one the highest rate of domestic violence of other careers?

Professional Police who are routinely shown to tamper with evidence and manipulate testimony. (ie drop guns, stepping too close to a suspect to induce a trip which causes arms to fling up and the officer can claim self defense, tasering anything that moves, absurd swat overtraining, police who routinely violate civil rights...)

If the police do manage to “get to you” in time, you become expendible as long as they have contained the perpetrator in your house.


32 posted on 03/24/2008 1:53:44 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; neverdem
Charles Lane is arguing that the 2nd Amendment ought not be read the way it was written, because times have changed. That is always the argument of anyone who wants to ditch a part of the Constitution.

The central dishonesty of this approach is that it steals from the American people our right to control our own Constitution, through the amendment process. The control of our own government is the very first political right stated in the Declaration of Independence. Yet this writer tramples it without even noticing that it is there.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "The Uber-Nigerian Scam"

Help a Freeper into Congress.

P.S. I wrote one of the briefs in the Heller case, supporting the opposite conclusion from this guy.

33 posted on 03/24/2008 1:53:54 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It has always been open season on Black Republicans.


34 posted on 03/24/2008 2:07:56 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~***Just say NO to the "O"***~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Redcloak
Did you see the story posted here last week, about a Covina CA woman who was killed by burglars, while she was on the phone begging the 911 operator for help?

Redcloak linked it in comment# 3, thanks.

35 posted on 03/24/2008 2:13:16 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero
“reasonable and necessary” is a cover for pretty much unlimited restriction in this case. Don’t grant the WP any Constitutional common sense.

I posted it for the story of the Colfax massacre.

36 posted on 03/24/2008 2:15:36 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

It is the strict scrutiny test which the left fears.

If every piece of gun control has to pass a strict scrutiny test, the same high level of examination which freeom of speech cases have to pass, then many gun laws will go down in massive flames.

Just like in all states where gun ownership leads to lower crime levels, it will eliminate the “government will protect you” taxation gravytrain.


37 posted on 03/24/2008 2:21:10 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"....but they are doing really important work, writing summonses and raising revenue."


And eating donuts....



38 posted on 03/24/2008 2:41:00 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This guy sounds like a weenie that runs away from a kid holding a squirt gun.


39 posted on 03/24/2008 3:24:32 PM PDT by wastedyears (The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide.

This is one of those cases where some left-wing nutjob is trying to give his argument an advantage by controlling the focus of the debate. In a country where there actually is rule of law, it doesn't matter one damn bit what anyone thinks should be the case. It only matters what the law actually says.

That is even more important when the law in question is the highest law in the land - the Constitution. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether this author's premise is true, that ownership of firearms poses a greater danger to the owners than it provides benefit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed only when the firearms do not pose a risk to their owners. It says that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Any argument as to the wisdom of that amendment is MOOT. We have a well-defined process for making changes to the Constitution, and that process does not include the whim of every left-wing freak who finds firearms frightening.

If the 2nd Amendment truly is outdated, then change it. Properly. Otherwise, all of the anti-gun statistics in the world, whether valid or not, have no bearing on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment for that matter.
40 posted on 03/24/2008 3:39:53 PM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Weren’t the cops outside for around 3 hours?


41 posted on 03/24/2008 3:43:11 PM PDT by wastedyears (The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
If I understand Charles Lane's article about the Colfax Massacre correctly, that event is another example of a post-14th A. gun-related incident where the USSC noted that the 2nd A. was a prohibition only upon the federal Congress.
"Waite's objection was that the Second Amendment protected that right against violation by Congress, not by private parties such as the paramilitaries at Colfax. Thus, only a state, not the federal government, could criminalize the conspiracy that Beckwith charged." --Charles Lane, washingtonpost.com March 22, 2008
The other example is Presser v. Illinois.
"The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States." --Presser v. Illinois, 1886
In my opinion, these examples reflect that the USSC was unaware of John Bingham's inclusion of the 2nd A. in examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states, John Bingham having been the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those first eight amendments are as follows:

[first eight amendments listed]

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the states, until made so by the fourteenth amendment." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Regarding things that the USSC takes into consideration to decide a case, I have noticed that Court opinions often reference the opinions of previous cases as opposed to the Congressional Record or its precursors, such as the Congressional Globe from which the above Bingham excerpt was taken. Although it appears like the USSC was "uninterested" in congressional discussions concerning amendments to the Constitution, I suspect the following.

My guess is that since computer-assisted archive searches were non-existent in the 19th century that it was too inconvenient for justices to "walk across the street" to review congressional archives as a help to deciding cases. If this is the case, and hopefully some FReepers can provide some insight, then the USSC's "ignoring" of the Congressional Record is disturbing for the following reason.

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59
Note my first exposure to all the materials that I reference came from a computer screen.
42 posted on 03/24/2008 3:46:36 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I live in Omaha Nebraska & the “professional police force “ that protects me just this past year had one of its members who had the “hobby” of demanding sexual favors from street walkers or he would arrest them for possession of drugs while in uniform & on duty.

He was sentenced to roughly 2.5 years of supervised probation! The sentence was appealed after public outrage & upheld.

Gives you some idea of the standard of justice here don't it folks. p.s. this ain't the first time this kinda cr*p has happened with the O.P.D.

43 posted on 03/24/2008 5:18:25 PM PDT by Nebr FAL owner (.308 reach out & thump someone .50 cal.Browning Machine gun reach out & crush someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Redcloak

Thanks Recloak, I’d have clicked it if the link had a title!

:^O


44 posted on 03/24/2008 5:42:29 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Nowhere was the need for black access to weapons more clearly demonstrated than at Colfax, where freedmen rallied -- shotguns in hand -- to defend their local elected officials from heavily armed whites led by ex-Confederate officers. They were also reacting to the murder of an unarmed black farmer. The black men, supporters of Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party, acted as a posse sworn in by a (white) Republican sheriff.

Wait, I thought the Supreme Court said shotguns were not "militia" weapons. But that posse is just the militia wearing a different hat. (Of course the Supreme Court did not actually say that, they just said they couldn't say they were militia weapons without some evidence being heard or presented. Since the respondent, Miller, was not represented, it's not surprising no such facts were presented.)

45 posted on 03/24/2008 8:58:06 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: El Gato; Congressman Billybob
Wait, I thought the Supreme Court said shotguns were not "militia" weapons. But that posse is just the militia wearing a different hat. (Of course the Supreme Court did not actually say that, they just said they couldn't say they were militia weapons without some evidence being heard or presented. Since the respondent, Miller, was not represented, it's not surprising no such facts were presented.)

I'm under the impression that all fact finding has to be decided at the district court level, and that appeals to the Circuit Court or SCOTUS are limited to violations of due process, stare decisis and violations of the Constitution, conflicts between Circuit Courts excepted for the SCOTUS. All corrections are appreciated.

46 posted on 03/24/2008 11:04:38 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

If Hillary wins the nomination, we should all call her at 3AM to congradgulate her. The next day at 3AM to complain about gas prices. The next day at 3AM to.......


47 posted on 03/24/2008 11:15:27 PM PDT by budwiesest (I hope we make the best choice this time. We owe it to baby daddy baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I'm under the impression that all fact finding has to be decided at the district court level, and that appeals to the Circuit Court or SCOTUS are limited to violations of due process, stare decisis and violations of the Constitution, conflicts between Circuit Courts excepted for the SCOTUS

I think theoretically yes, but practically, as in this case, no. The facts of Miller's violation of the law were not in dispute. So the "fact finding" is not really that, but rather a matter how the law or Constitution is to be applied in the case at hand. That may take "evidence" of previous applications or of the intent of the framers, or some other fact that bears on the application of the law/Constitution to the facts in evidence.

Thus, I believe that if Miller and Layton had been represented, their attorney or attorney's could have introduced "evidence" that sort shotguns had been used for military/militia purposes.

But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one. I do have a daughter and son-in-law who *are* lawyers, but I've not asked them about it. I'll try to do so when next I see them, which will be in just under two weeks I think, although next weekend is a possibility as well, since the daughter often needs "relief" from caring for the 4 month old identical twins and the almost 3 year old daughter. :)

48 posted on 03/24/2008 11:21:52 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Your quick description of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take cases is generally correct, plus it has a rare set of cases on Original Jurisdiction (per the text of the Constitution).

The Heller case is one of "conflict among the Circuits" since other Circuits than D.C. have held that the 2nd Amendment protects only a collective ("militia") right, whereas the D.C. Circuit ruled it was an individual right.

The Court should have taken the Emerson case from Texas, two years ago, on the same basis, because that was an "individual" rights ruling. But since there's no appeal above the Supreme Court, it can duck any case it is scared of, and no one can say otherwise. I think the change of Justice Alito for Justice O'Connor is why the Court took this case, and why it will decide in favor of an individual right.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "The Uber-Nigerian Scam"

Help a Freeper into Congress.

49 posted on 03/25/2008 12:03:41 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; All

I made an error. Blacks murdered 934 whites in 2005. 4,497 was the number of black on black murders.


50 posted on 03/26/2008 1:31:48 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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