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

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment cases up early
SCOTUSBLOG ^ | August 21, 2009 | Lyle Denniston

Posted on 08/24/2009 8:07:41 AM PDT by neverdem

The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket.  Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497 [1]) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521 [2]).

The so-called “incorporation” issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller [3], recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.

If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.

The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592 [4]). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.


Article printed from SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp

URL to article: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-amendment-cases-up-early/

URLs in this post:

[1] 08-1497: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1497.htm

[2] 08-1521: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm

[3] District of Columbia v. Heller: http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

[4] (08-1592: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1592.htm

Copyright © 2007 SCOTUSblog. All rights reserved.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; bho44; donttreadonme; maloney; mcdonald; nationalrifleassn; obama; scotus; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 08/24/2009 8:07:41 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Health care, immigration, gun control. Each of these are potential flashpoints and all are being pushed, through one method or another.

The crack-up will occur prior to the 2010 election. That is why people in Congress will vote for healthcare and not worry about the next election cycle. There won't be a next election cycle.

2 posted on 08/24/2009 8:12:44 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I fiercely love the right to keep and bear arms and would enjoy sseing all gun laws rescinded, but once govt takes over the health care industry we’re not going to have to worry about our gun rights - they’ll be gone. A govt official will declare gun owners “unhealthy” and any gun owner would then be denied health care and, to really convince him to stop thinking like a free man, they will also deny care to his wife and kids. Could this happen? I think it’s possible. Remember a few years back where children’s doctors were asking “Is there a gun in the house?”


3 posted on 08/24/2009 8:13:28 AM PDT by BertWheeler (Dance and the world dances with you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank; endthematrix; Chgogal; NotJustAnotherPrettyFace; Lawgvr1955; Petruchio; stylin19a; ...

I see another 5 - 4 for the good guys, IMHO. How could citizens of D.C. have more rights than citizens of Chicago?


4 posted on 08/24/2009 8:14:41 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It all depends on Justice Kennedy.

Pray.


5 posted on 08/24/2009 8:15:45 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Does anyone actually believe Sotomayor will recuse herself? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


6 posted on 08/24/2009 8:18:48 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws.

Am I English challenged? What the heck kind of backwards talking society are we living in? The Second Amendment as written, applies to all jurisdictions. However, the First Amendment does not. Congress shall not

So the busybodies are running around arguing that you can't pray in schools and have to allow pornography locally on First Amendment grounds when it contains a Congress shall not statement, yet local jurisdictions CAN ban guns when the Second Amendment does not contain a Congress shall not statement.
7 posted on 08/24/2009 8:22:08 AM PDT by Crazieman (Feb 7, 2008 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966675/posts?page=28#28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BertWheeler

“Remember a few years back where children’s doctors were asking “Is there a gun in the house?””

They still ask.

And in the UK your health care is limited if you smoke or are what the government calls “obese”.

Yes, it can happen hear, firearms after all being vicious and use lead, and powder. Many ways to limit health care options for gun owners.


8 posted on 08/24/2009 8:26:08 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Crack up? National break up? ObamaCare Jokes Obama Jokes
9 posted on 08/24/2009 8:28:13 AM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman

Yup. It’s that “living document” stuff. It’s the “penumbra” that gave us Roe v Wade. The Constitution no longer means what it says. It actually means all kinds of stuff that it doesn’t say at all. Gotta have a decoder ring these days.


10 posted on 08/24/2009 8:32:12 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman
The Second Amendment as written, applies to all jurisdictions.

Utterly false.

11 posted on 08/24/2009 8:33:12 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Incorporation is the next logical step after Heller. Justice Kennedy will likely vote for incorporation, since he did vote with the Conservative Justices in Heller. The Liberal Justices will vote against hearing this case and will vote against incorporating the Second Amendment. They will rely on stare decisis, to defend the 19th Century cases which ruled the Second Amendment did not apply to the States based on reasoning that was meant to convert the Fourteenth Amendment into a nullity.

PREDICTION: 5-4 for incorporation, with United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886) and Miller v. Texas (1894) overruled. Opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy, with the primary (possibly sole) dissent written by Justice Stevens.

12 posted on 08/24/2009 8:35:02 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Commerce clause must be undone ... That is where all this crap federal cram down springs from

The Civil War Amendments were racially based Amendments, incorporating the Bill of Rights for the new freedmen. The Democrat's racist southern governments tried to impose “black codes” which prevented former slaves from possessing guns.

These “Black Codes” were specifically designed to subjugate these recently freed slaves to be defenseless and at the mercy of the Democrat party's terror wing, the KKK. Congress passed a few laws to try and remedy this problem, but it wasn't until the Bill of Rights was incorporated did it become ‘fixed’.

Incorporation was specifically designed to force the several States to incorporate in their Constituions the federal Bill of Rights. So if this goes down ... does it become unfixed and depending on race you can control who owns a gun, or who has free speech, or (put your favorite right here)

Of course the "Civil War Amendments" did nothing to stop the Democrats terror wing, the KKK, whose influence finally dropped off in the 1950s.

Going to be an interesting time.

So you ask how did the Democrats remain in control of the southern states, quite simple, they had their terror wing, the KKK, go out and lynch the political opposition. Yes that's right, more whites were lynched by the KKK than were blacks, and for the same reason ... Intimidation and control.

13 posted on 08/24/2009 8:36:27 AM PDT by Tarpon (The Joker's plan -- Slavery by debt so large it can never be repaid...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

Every Freeper should be a member of the NRA. Enroll in an extra gun group if you feel the need but the media and the leftists hate and fear the NRA above all others.

Please join.


14 posted on 08/24/2009 8:37:12 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman
Am I English challenged?

No, just challenged on Constitutional law cases that go way back to Marbury v. Madison and Barron v. Baltimore. The former said that SCOTUS has the last word about what's legal. The latter stated that the Constitution only applies to the feds.

After the Civil War, cases such as Slaughterhouse, Presser and Cruikshank came along to hamstring the 14th Amendment's intent to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

15 posted on 08/24/2009 8:38:24 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
The Constitution no longer means what it says.

It won't if the incorporationists have their way.

"Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language."--Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

16 posted on 08/24/2009 8:40:05 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
You do know that Barron v. Baltimore came down 35 years before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
17 posted on 08/24/2009 8:53:58 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I can live without incorporation, if they’d rule that the Commerce clause prohibits federal regulation of arms.


18 posted on 08/24/2009 8:54:27 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Typical "Rightwing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
Yes that's right, more whites were lynched by the KKK than were blacks, and for the same reason ... Intimidation and control.

Fascinating, do you have some independent sources?

19 posted on 08/24/2009 8:54:44 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
You do know that Barron v. Baltimore came down 35 years before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

20 posted on 08/24/2009 8:55:05 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

My brother and I had a good talk yesterday. There is only two or three things that will really set a person off.

Take away his food. Make him hungry.
Take away his method of personal security. Take his guns.
And take away his roof. Throw him out in the cold.


21 posted on 08/24/2009 8:59:04 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Tar and feather the sons of bi#ches! Ride them out of town on a rail!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44171


22 posted on 08/24/2009 9:00:32 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It could be 5-3 or 4-4 depending where Kennedy stands.


23 posted on 08/24/2009 9:02:56 AM PDT by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Sure, read American history books ... There are plenty online. I find the online ones from British Universities among the best, since they tend not to re-write. Search US History KKK. Some one wrote a book about the KKK and lynching recently. You did keep your old college texts, didn't you? I have one of the really old, expensive, Garrity texts.

One of the best US history books are those written by John A. Garrity The American Nation, the older the better, if you interested in truth. They are expensive, most are out of print now. Garrity was one of the best historians out there.

I'm not at home now, so I don't have my links, but I am sure you can easily find what I say is true. There were about 3500 blacks lynched and near 4000 white political opponents lynched, if I recall correctly.

24 posted on 08/24/2009 9:09:30 AM PDT by Tarpon (The Joker's plan -- Slavery by debt so large it can never be repaid...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ClayinVA
It could be 5-3 or 4-4 depending where Kennedy stands.

I don't believe Justice Sotomayor will recuse herself.

25 posted on 08/24/2009 9:11:39 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Thanks for the link.


26 posted on 08/24/2009 9:37:34 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman

Oh come now...Yer just making sense now!!!

Comparing Apples to Oranges, and trying to get grape juice out of all of this is just crazy talk...Just plain crazy...

Psssttt...We still have our guns...

And, in a year we get to pull the plug on a lot of these goobers...That is going to send shock wave thru the progressive elements on the court...

Patience grasshoppah...When you can snatch the pebble from my hand...It will be time for you to load up your hollow points...;-)


27 posted on 08/24/2009 9:37:50 AM PDT by stevie_d_64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

Thanks for the link.


28 posted on 08/24/2009 9:38:07 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Utterly false.

A convincing, fact-filled argument which utterly exposes the fallacy of the preceding statement.

We all know that the Second Amendment reads

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep ad bear Arms, shall not be infringed at the federal level, other than a few common-sense regulations. States and other local governments may do as they please, up to and including forbidding the people either to keep or bear Arms.

/s!

29 posted on 08/24/2009 10:11:33 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
It won't if the incorporationists have their way.

They already did. It's called the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has just been reluctant to declare its meaning binding until each enumerated right is reviewed individually.

30 posted on 08/24/2009 10:22:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (flag@whitehouse.gov may bounce messages but copies may be kept. Informants are still solicited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Tell us more about the UK - it’s truly a horrible place now for health care.


31 posted on 08/24/2009 10:32:58 AM PDT by BertWheeler (Dance and the world dances with you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

You are corect.
In Binghams actual words...

CONG. GLOBE, 37th Cong., 2d Sess. 1639 (1862). Bingham states that among the privileges and immunities protected by Article IV, Section 2 were the rights to freedom of speech, press, conscience, assembly, trial by jury, and the right to bear arms.

Speech of Hon. John A. Bingham at Belpre, Ohio, September 14, 1871, supra note 70

John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

On January 25, 1866, two years before the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, Bingham made clear his belief that
the federal government should be empowered to enforce the
Bill of Rights against the states. Bingham spoke in general
terms about what was to become the Fourteenth Amendment,
then pending before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction.
He said it was a [Page 72] “general”
amendment which would give Congress the express power to
enforce “the rights which were guarantied [sic] ...
from the beginning, but which guarantee has unhappily
been disregarded by more than one State of this
Union, ... simply because of a want of power in Congress to
enforce that guarantee.”
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 429 (Jan. 25, 1866).

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html
(I can’t post the exact link but the CONG. GLOBE can be veiwed here.)


32 posted on 08/24/2009 10:44:05 AM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ClayinVA
It could be 5-3 or 4-4 depending where Kennedy stands.

I'm sure you mean where Kennedy "stands" philosophically. I'm not sure he really stands anywhere, if you catch my drift.


33 posted on 08/24/2009 10:59:48 AM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Keep in mind that there are plenty who want to minimize the ‘white political component’ of the Democrat’s KKK lynching streak, so you need to search deep, in the fine print. Remember, the Democrats-KKK was all about power, just like today’s Democrats, and the white establishment was the enemy that had to be stopped.

Forget Democrat shill sites Wikipedia and the like.

Like with the numbers of people the genocidal NAZIs actually murdered, closer to 12 million total, instead of just the 6 million who were Jews as is often cited. My wife is Polish and about 5 million Polish people were also murdered or thrown in the ovens.

Nobody probably knows the real numbers in either case ...


34 posted on 08/24/2009 11:00:00 AM PDT by Tarpon (The Joker's plan -- Slavery by debt so large it can never be repaid...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
That is why people in Congress will vote for healthcare and not worry about the next election cycle. There won't be a next election cycle.

Sadly, this is probably all too true.

35 posted on 08/24/2009 11:27:33 AM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
It's called the 14th Amendment.

It's called judicial activism.

36 posted on 08/24/2009 11:49:05 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

“Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.”—Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)


37 posted on 08/24/2009 11:50:05 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
He said it was a [Page 72] “general” amendment which would give Congress the express power to enforce “the rights which were guarantied [sic] ... from the beginning

The "right" of the federal government to strip the states of their historic police powers was not "guarantied [sic] ... from the beginning."

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)


38 posted on 08/24/2009 11:55:19 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

What’s judicially activist about the 14th Amendment, other than the reluctance to rule it applies as written?


39 posted on 08/24/2009 12:34:16 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (flag@whitehouse.gov may bounce messages but copies may be kept. Informants are still solicited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
What’s judicially activist about the 14th Amendment

Its use as a cover for judicial legislation. It's the favorite wildcard amendment for the left to destroy original intent.

But you know that.

40 posted on 08/24/2009 12:38:41 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Context is everything.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... “
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“[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, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
—John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
“The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ...”
— James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
— Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
“ ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
— George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
“ ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ...”
— Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
— Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
“The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ...”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
— Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
— Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
— Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
“ ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
— James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
— Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... “
—Samuel Adams

41 posted on 08/24/2009 12:44:23 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... “ — Samuel Adams

Thanks for refuting yourself.

That's one of the dangers of the "data dump" method.

42 posted on 08/24/2009 12:51:53 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

What “use” was he referring to? What “use” do we seek beyond those he enumerates? And given “self-defense”, what business does the state have in limiting those applications which Adams himself exempts from limitation?


43 posted on 08/24/2009 12:52:33 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (flag@whitehouse.gov may bounce messages but copies may be kept. Informants are still solicited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.” —John Adams

LOL - You really should try reading your cut and pastes first.

44 posted on 08/24/2009 12:55:01 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Context is everything.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... “

— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“[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, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

—John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

— Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

“The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ...”

— James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

— Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

“ ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

— George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

“ ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ...”

— Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

— Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

“The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun.”

— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ...”

— Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

— Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

— Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

— Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

“ ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”

— James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”

— Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... “
—Samuel Adams

45 posted on 08/24/2009 12:55:57 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
And given “self-defense”, what business does the state have in limiting those applications which Adams himself exempts from limitation?

Exempts? Adams explicitly states that the power to regulate arms lies in the states and their subdivisions.

46 posted on 08/24/2009 12:56:59 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” — Patrick Henry

Thanks again.

47 posted on 08/24/2009 12:58:29 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense,”

Context.... context....

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28


48 posted on 08/24/2009 1:01:14 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. — Alexander Hamilton

I don't see anything about the 2nd Amendment (which didn't exist when that was written) there. You seem to be confusing the word "context" with the phrase "emanations from penumbras."

49 posted on 08/24/2009 1:05:01 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

“except in private self-defense”


50 posted on 08/24/2009 1:20:12 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (flag@whitehouse.gov may bounce messages but copies may be kept. Informants are still solicited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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