Posted on 03/27/2008 9:45:28 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Technically, the challenge is to a District of Columbia handgun ban. Realistically, the U.S. Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments and took under advisement a case that could have historic ramifications for the right to bear arms.
Is that right restricted to a "well regulated militia," or does it embrace private ownership by individuals? The early indication is that the justices are leaning toward the latter.
The case is known as District of Columbia v. Heller. Dick Anthony Heller is an Army veteran and security guard at a federal building in the nation's capital. Because of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, he says he must keep his personal firearms stored outside the District and feels unsafe as a result.
It's an argument echoed often by the gun ownership side in the ongoing gun-control debate. But the case reminds us that gun control advocates also can find ammunition (no pun intended) in the Second Amendment.
As Forth Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram columnist J. R. "Jill" Labbe wrote in a November column after the court agreed to hear the case:
"What makes this case different ... is that the argument is not about the firearms that people choose to bear or how they put the guns to use. Heller is about the foundational question of whether an individual right is protected."
"The justices could use this case to overturn laws at state and federal levels that Second Amendment advocates argue have infringed upon the right to own and possess guns. ..."
"On the other hand, the court could decide that when James Madison penned, "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," he never thought it would be construed to mean that private citizens should be armed. That's what D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty is hoping for."
Labbe, whose columns appear periodically on this page, is a former member of the National Rifle Association. She dropped her membership "during one national election cycle -- don't even remember which one now -- when some of the propaganda from Wayne LaPierre's ceaseless stuffing of my mailbox (with a goal of raising money for the NRA) was nothing short of Chicken Little fear mongering."
Her husband is a retired police officer who is on his third yearlong tour in Afghanistan as a civilian contractor with the State Department.
She is familiar with both sides of the gun control debate and her comments above go to the precedent-setting potential of a high court ruling when it is handed down later.
A concern we have is that a court ruling could overreach in ruling on the D.C. handgun ban and find that states or the federal government can't regulate certain types of weapons. Government's regulatory authority certainly must be retained over them.
We don't see the Second Amendment as an open-end license that allows a private citizen in this modern era to have assault rifles or heavy artillery in their basements. Some weapons should be reserved for use only by the military or police.
Handguns are another issue, one the high court should separate from the overall question of regulation.
A key phrase in that short, famous Second Amendment is "a well regulated Militia." The Founding Fathers had just been on the winning side of the War of Independence in which "militia" and private citizens (the so-called Minutemen) were often one and the same. Of course, they had to be individually armed and that concern and influence obviously carried over into the drafting of the Second Amendment as part of the context of the times.
But one can't equate the militia then to United States military forces of today. The modern civilian militia of today would more properly be the National Guard, which is under jurisdiction of both the state and federal governments.
The Supreme Court has a major constitutional test in front of it. Which way will the justices go? Given the conservative bent of the nine-member panel, it's doubtful the Second Amendment will be trashed. We just don't want to see them overreact to protect individual ownership to the point of discarding needed regulation of certain types of firearms.
I suppose it depends on what the definition of “Arms” is.
Barf Alert ... Yep ... The Yakima Herald has made me Yak-i-My lunch.
Based on this fact alone, I'd rule that Dick Anthony Heller has a lot more business carrying a firearm than the crack-smoking, prostitute patronizing elected officials of DC do telling him that he can't.
Boy, the gun grabbers are in a tizzy! It kills me the way they are all of a sudden assuring everybody that they never intended to take everybody's guns, yada, yada yada.
All they want is to see the justices exercise "common sense" and not eliminate thoughtful restrictions...
B.S. They know that there day is over and they are pizzed!
>>”On the other hand, the court could decide that when James Madison penned, “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,” he never thought it would be construed to mean that private citizens should be armed. That’s what D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty is hoping for.”
Let’s ask James Madison shall we?
‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’
— James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.
Certainly seems like Madison construed the 2nd to mean that private citizens be armed...
this guy is wrong....the intent of this amendment is to allow citizens to be able to rise up against a runaway government. Therefore, any weapons the military possesses, citizens should be allowed to keep in their homes. The second amendment is the constitutions reset button........
Does the first amendment only allow people to write fiction?
Or does it limit us to only talk about the weather?
“The modern civilian militia of today would more properly be the National Guard, which is under jurisdiction of both the state and federal governments.”
!! Moron Practicing “Revisionist Linguistics” alert !!
This is true in a sense. However, I believe that the private ownership of firearms is the surest method of thwarting such a government from ever coming into being in the first place.
Some time ago Senator Schumer (D-NY) said that government officials like himself should not have to serve, in fear for their lives. To which I counter, you absolutely should serve in fear of an armed populace. What other mechanism is there for the public to assure that you are working on their behalf and not your own.
Well, yeah, they could do that if at least five of them have been smoking crack.
I think we can probably infer that they wouldn't want the average citizen to own weapons of mass destruction after all those types of weapons have nothing to do with “Individual” protection. On the other hand the average citizen at the time was “granted” by God to individual protection for himself up to and including what would have been considered the military combat rifle and even cannons if he could afford them.
I think any rifle or personnel gun would meet that test and I would include tanks if you can afford them after proper licensing (read training).
I think the test should rightly be “Individual” protection.
Somewhere in the second amendment it differentiates between handguns, homeland defense rifles and hunting guns?
Ive read it many times, and I must have missed that part.
Instead of "reasonable regulations" against disclosing national security secrets to enemies of America, we would have a system where the government vets every publication prior to distribution.
Instead of "reasonable regulations" against exposing minors to pornography, we would have a public dress code that would make Saudi Arabia look like the Playboy Mansion.
Instead of "reasonable regulations" against libel and slander, we would have a legal system that imposes legal sanctions in response to the most frivolous claims that someone is "offended".
Wrong tact.
The 1stA allows the prohibition of certain categories of communications tools. ‘tis reasonable to restrict ‘net blogs into oblivion because people can too easily publish too dangerous ideas too quickly to too many people without any kind of background check. Yeah, that’s it. Time to shut down FR. Yeah. Right.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Powers to do so would have been stated in the Amendment. People have rights. Government has powers.
or books vs. newspapers vs. Or only licensed professionals can write. You know, those authorized by the government.
The modern civilian militia of today would more properly be the National Guard, which is under jurisdiction of both the state and federal governments.
Sorry numbnutz -- WRONG answer. The National Guard is NOT the "Militia" ref'd in the 2A.
IIRC when the National Guard was formed that was made explicit by Congress (and SCOTUS later on).
Which raises the question: what DID the process for repealing Prohibition look like? how can we initiate the same basic ideas into popular acceptance?
You may have to ask some of the more senior members on FR...
think any rifle or personnel gun would meet that test and I would include tanks if you can afford them after proper licensing (read training).
See “Tank” on DVD from Amazon.
Simple: own what you want and can afford, and don't do something stupid with it or the rest of us will stop you with extreme prejudice.
Tanks included, without licensing.
Like their forefathers, Democrats are really targeting blacks. Find a large concentration of blacks, you find Democrats redlining the area for gun control.
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.