Posted on 06/17/2008 12:52:10 PM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Court's upcoming decision in a Washington, D.C. handgun ban case could potentially nullify thousands of gun laws on the books. The case stems from a security guard who was denied a request to keep a firearm in his District residence for self-protection.
Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty recently said that the District's handgun ban "has saved many lives since 1976 and will continue to do so if allowed to remain in force." How does he measure that? The truth is that murder by handguns has gone up substantially in the District since the handgun ban was passed. I wonder how many honest people in the District were killed by thugs with guns because they were deprived of the ability to adequately defend themselves.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in its entirety: "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."
What is it about "shall not" the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand? For years they have argued that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individual gun ownership, when the comma between the words "free state" and "the right" clearly shows that the framers of the Constitution were masters of brevity and were addressing two different issues they obviously did not want tampered with. Some might not like what the amendment says, but it doesn't change the fact that it says it.
Let's suppose there is a constitutional amendment that reads: A well regulated free government health care system, being necessary to the health of the people, the right of women to have abortions on demand, shall not be infringed. Would the typical anti-gun advocate suddenly understand what "shall not" and "infringe" mean? Would conservative pro-gunners argue that abortions could be regulated, denied or restricted at every level of government?
In the worst case scenario for anti-gunners, the Supreme Court could negate all gun laws on the books because the Second Amendment is the gun law of the land. Keeping and bearing arms shall not be infringed. Gun laws infringe that right. Any law contrary to that is obviously unconstitutional. The amendment doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except if you are a juvenile or a mental patient or live in the District of Columbia. It doesn't restrict convicted criminals from keeping and bearing arms either.
The ramifications of this decision could be enormous. "Keeping" and "bearing" arms are two different issues. Keeping arms would allow citizens to maintain a firearm in their residence, tent, vehicle, boat or other conveyance. Bearing arms could be interpreted as legally carrying firearms in public. Concealed weapon permits would be a thing of the past because they are designed by state governments to infringe residents from bearing firearms.
Should mentally deranged people, organized street gang members or convicted felons be allowed to carry concealed firearms? I don't think so. But they may suddenly regain that right. The Supreme Court could place restrictions on firearm ownership the same way it restricts free speech by excluding libel, slander and yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn't one. But those restrictions came after decades of rulings handed down by the Court. It seems to me that the only constitutional way to restrict gun ownership is to have a separate amendment that specifies when a person loses his Second Amendment rights.
Even if all gun laws were declared unconstitutional, gun violence would probably not increase significantly because criminals have never followed gun laws, so why would they start now?
No matter where you stand on the issue, it will be exciting to see where the Justices stand on the literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Gregory D. Lee is a criminal justice consultant, author of three college textbooks and a syndicated columnist with North Star Writers Group. You can see his previous material here.
COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
The only people who have a problem with the wording of the 2A are the same idiots who somehow find the right to an abortion in the constitution.
They can’t see one and they just make up the other.
Remember “Algore” said it was a living breathing document, funny I thought it was encased in argon or some other type of inert gas...
I read the suit was brought by a Police Officer, who wanted to keep a gun in his home.
Think of the new definitions of the words "gay" and "marriage"
I have hosted it Here for anyone who would like to read it.
Isn’t it pretty clear where 8 of the justices stand (at least to an approximate degree), and that those 8 are split 4-4 on whether the right to bear arms belongs to the people or just to the state militia?
So it rests with Kennedy, and given the recent past, that’s cause for some worry.
I remain hopeful, the 2nd Amend. will be construed as an individual right. If it is so construed, however, I’ll wager that the “shall not be infringed” part will be given a loose meaning, as in “not OVERLY infringed” or “not TOTALLY infringed”.
bookmark for later
The suit was brought by a security officer charged with protecting the same hypocrite public officials who say he can’t protect himself at home.
It never did. Infringing on an American Citizen's Second Amendment right(s) due to a prior conviction is only a recent trend. And it did not stem from any part of the constitution. It came into being in the late sixties or early seventies as I recall. Something like that.
I agree completely. There's an awful lot of optimistic tea-reading going on, optimistic if you car about retaining your Constitutional rights, that is. This could go very badly.
>>>>>I downloaded and read the briefs that were presented by the attorneys for Heller
And it was reported that the attorney who brought and argued DoJ’s case resigned several weeks ago.
Scooter Libby can never own a gun again (legally) is that right? NO!!
If you do that then who will decide what is 'overly infringed'? State and local governments? The same people who wrote the law now before the court?
There isn’t a “new definition” -
in reality, there is only one definition,
and it has been destroyed.
They didn’t “redefine marriage” - they UNDEFINED it.
IMHO, if a citizen can’t be trusted with a firearm, he shouldn’t be free amongst us.
This part is brilliant:
The Copyright and Patent Clause preamble would arguably possess greater operative force than that of the Second Amendment, as it begins with the infinitive that introduces most powers of Congress. The power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, viewed with the same breadth as the power “[t]o regulate Commerce,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, could stand alone absent the text that follows. In contrast, the Second Amendment’s preamble merely declares a concept. Yet “Congress need not ‘require that each copyrighted work be shown to promote the useful arts.’ ” Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102, 112 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). And this Court does not question whether copyright and patent laws serve the preambular purpose of promoting progress, though some laws might fail such examination. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 (2003).
Decent, law-abiding citizens will always outnumber mentally deranged people, organized street gang members and convicted felons by at least 10 to 1. If everybody were armed, the numbers of these undesirable types will decrease even further.
They say that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. That is not the whole story. Evil can also triumph if good men are restricted to the point where they can do nothing.
Point well taken and a good one at that
So, I am supposing here that unless someone was oh, say, running around sticking up gas stations and such, i.e. committing a crime with a firearm, no restriction on that person's Second Amendment right(s) should be imposed. However, if they were specifically misusing a firearm BY committing "armed robbery" or similar armed crime, then some sort of a restriction could be invoked.
Let the punishment fit the crime. What a novel thought. Gubberment prosecutors will be having strokes.
Marriage was undefined decades ago. It used to be looked on as a permanent union; "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder' as both Matthew and Mark state. But then the civil laws were changed and divorce became so commonplace that it lost its stigma. Now marriage is looked upon as a temporary arrangement. Something to be entered into until something or someone better comes along. It didn't take homosexual unions to do that.
if all gun laws were declared unconstitutional
Or
if all gun laws were declared un constitutional
Or
If the 2nd Amendment never existed
The Constitution’s Article I, Section I refers to “powers herein granted” (Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.)
Where in the Constitution is the “herein granted” legislative power that would allow Congress to write a law prohibiting the individual citizen from owning a firearm?
Sound good to me. Unfortunately it is not us that must trust the specific individual. It is that day by day it is becoming obvious that government bureaucrats do not trust any NGO American Citizens.
Call me dense but I have no clue what you are trying to say. My point was if someone abuses their 2nd amendment rights via crime they deserve to have that right taken away. That is what should be amended to the Constitution.
Does Scooter Libby deserve to lose his 2A rights due to his felony conviction? There should be some standards placed in consideration of the type of felony. IMHO
The BOR does not give rights but rather acknowledges God given rights and prohibits the Government from taking them away.
And I don't mean Bill O'Rielly ;^)
Good article!
Be Ever Vigilant!!
This case is very important and will likely be decided based on money and threats related to that money: there can be no World Government until USA wealth and production is distributed abroad and USA is disarmed.
Back in the 19th century when a person was paroled he was given back ALL his possessions that he had with him when he was arrested, including his guns and ammo.
Lets suppose for a minute that this goes terribly for us, and they rule that it is a collective right, giving the libs power to begin to try to take away our guns. What is our next step to make sure that the constitution is amended to specifically say that this is an individual right?
How would we force the asshoooles that lead us to make this happen?
So it rests with Kennedy, and given the recent past, that’s cause for some worry.
If that's the case and Kennedy screws up this case, all Hell should break loose. My guess is that he remembers the reaction to Kelo, but doesn't want to go along with a Scalia-like decision. That means he will agree that there is an individual RKBA and shoot down the DC ban, but then will leave the question of what standard to apply to other gun regulations unanswered.
He will make a very narrow ruling. It will be one that will make Sandra D. proud.
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty recently said that the District’s handgun ban “has saved many lives since 1976
++++++++++++++++++++
This is correct. Criminals killed by private citizens with guns are less now than they were in 1976.
I grabbed it, Thanks.
>>>>>There is _no_ reason for optimism regarding the outcome of this case. <<<<<
I completely agree. My comment about the DoJ attorney resigning is a straw of hope, nothing more.
It’ll have to be onerous though, they can’t just “leave it to the states” (status quo). Because many state constitutions include language that’s much clearer and more supportive of gun rights than the 2nd.
Non violent civil disobedience has been shown to be the most effective method of raising public consciousness without incurring public censure.
We could carry unloaded guns in a protest demonstration.
>>>Criminals killed by private citizens with guns are less now than they were in 1976.
I know of many home invasion incidents in DC and the nearby MD suburbs where the perps were not shot and killed by disarmed homeowners.
Thanks for the link, but could I ask you and everyone else a small favor? Could you please name who wrote the brief in the future. I read a number of them including Gura's, but I had to open the pdf to find out. Sometimes my computer crashes opening a pdf. It seems to happen if too many windows are open.
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
I copied the above from different posts. on the first two we are in complete agreement. In fact, I have often posted responses worded similar to the 2nd above. It is the third I have a problem with.
No one, not You, nor I or even the Supreme Court can restrict the rights protected by the bill of rights. What can be done though is to establish a penalty to be paid by anyone who causes another to be harmed by the indiscriminate use of the protected rights.
In other words, I cannot stop anyone for defaming my character. I cannot prevent someone from telling lies about me. I cannot prevent anyone from keeping and bearing arms which appear to assault my person. What I can do is to help pass laws that impose appropriate penalties to those that in doing so injure my person or my reputation upon which I depend to earn my sustenance.
Free speech does not have limits prescribed my the Supreme Court. What we do have are a few laws that apply penalties fro Liable, Slander, Assault and Battery.
Don't take this as a personal affront. I'm just a "Cranky" old man who wonders why people today are not more familiar with the laws we live under.
Thanks for the link.
There’s a reason we have the Fifth Amendment.
If the First Amendment allows someone to burn a flag as free speech the Second Amendment should allow full auto.
Its a flip comment, but it seems like we have flip interpretation of BOR. There are not supposed to be any laws about religion, but go try to explain God in a grammar school and see how fast you get run out.
Well, if you look at it, even marriage is temporary, because somebody is going to pass away first.
Get ready to press “Reset.”
You know they’ll come knocking on your door.
Call up some friends you trust, get to hill nearest your home, and get ready.
Please elucidate
Carry unloaded where? And for how long?
How about an empty holster protest like Students for Concealed Carry do?
The same Congress that passed the Second Amendment also reauthorized the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, containing this language: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50, 52. But nobody would seriously contend that were religion, morality, or knowledge one day found unnecessary for good government, schools should no longer be encouraged in the states of the former Northwest Territory.
Most people do not realize that free speech can indeed be limited if said speech can result in harm (fire in a theater), cause damages slander, libel) or incite violence (harm again)Further more, the free speech clause was intended to protect political speech and not all forms of speech (art, pornography come to mind if you can call those "speech")It amazes me too that some would argue if free speech can be limited, so too can the 2nd amendment Sigh
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.