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

Skip to comments.

Experts square off on 'right to bear arms' (including Alan Gura from D.C. v. Heller)
Winston-Salem Journal ^ | November 17, 2009 | Michael Hewlett

Posted on 11/17/2009 10:38:27 AM PST by neverdem

Application of Second Amendment to be decided by Supreme Court


Journal Photo by Lauren Carroll
Lawyer Alan Gura says that owning semi-automatic guns is constitutional.

The man who successfully challenged a prohibition against handguns in the District of Columbia before the Supreme Court said last night during a local debate about the Second Amendment that some states have gone too far.

That's what happened in the District of Columbia, which required that firearms either be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, said Alan Gura, a lawyer from Alexandria, Va., who argued the Supreme Court case.

"If you have a right to bear arms, you have the right to bear arms that actually work," he said.

Gura debated the Second Amendment with Joseph Blocher, a professor of law at Duke University, at the law offices of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice at One West Fourth St. in Winston-Salem. Blocher helped write a brief for the District of Columbia in the Supreme Court case that Gura argued.

The debate was sponsored by the Piedmont Triad Lawyers Chapter of The Federalist Society, a nonprofit organization made up of conservatives and libertarians. About 55 people attended.

Blocher said that for hundreds of years, the courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to state militias. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The courts had never ruled on whether an individual had the right to bear arms, Blocher said.

Then last year, the Supreme Court did just that. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by the "historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The decision, Blocher said, turns the usual interpretation of the Second Amendment on its head, but the problem is that the Supreme Court decision is too vague, making it almost impossible to see how the decision will play out in states across the country.

Another case that the Supreme Court is taking up may answer some of those questions, both attorneys said.

Last month, the Supreme Court said it will take up a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns. Gura represents the plaintiff in Chicago and yesterday, just hours before the debate, he filed a brief outlining the arguments he plans to make to the Supreme Court in the case. The court is expected to make a decision sometime next year.

The central issue in the case will be whether the Second Amendment will apply to local and state laws. Currently, 44 state constitutions, including North Carolina, already protect gun rights.

Blocher said that since the country's founding, there have always been regulations on guns.

Gura said he has no problem with gun regulations. He agrees with background checks, for example.

However, while one may not like the idea of having powerful guns, owning some, including semi-automatic weapons, is constitutional, he said.

"Scary-looking weapons are protected," Gura said in reference to semi-automatic guns.

mhewlett@wsjournal.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alangura; banglist; dc; gura; heller; lawsuit; mcdonald; scotus
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-ts.pdf

Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago

1 posted on 11/17/2009 10:38:28 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The context of the 2A language has been, for a long time, a rediculous means of interpretation. The Bill of Rights is rights garaunteed to the individuals, protection of individual rights from the government. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the “states”.
2 posted on 11/17/2009 10:45:11 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The courts decide NOTHING as far as I’m concerned.
The Constitution which is the ultimate authority gives us the right to bear arms...


3 posted on 11/17/2009 10:48:09 AM PST by Maverick68 (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

I’ll show them MY interpretation of the Second Amendment when they try to enforce their interpretation.

BPE


4 posted on 11/17/2009 10:48:39 AM PST by Be_Politically_Erect (All Along The Watchtower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

The Constitution does not give us any rights. Our rights are derived from our Creator. The Constitution is meant to secure those liberties.

Now that doesn’t mean the government won’t bankrupt you trying to limit your rights, but that’s another thread.


5 posted on 11/17/2009 10:59:36 AM PST by CherylBower (R.I.P. U.S Constitution :()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
The courts decide NOTHING as far as I’m concerned. The Constitution which is the ultimate authority gives us the right to bear arms...

No, the Constitution does not give rights. God does:

"...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Constitution protects those unalienable rights from being infringed, abridged or otherwise interfered with by the federal government.
6 posted on 11/17/2009 11:00:23 AM PST by Dahoser (The missus and I joined the NRA. Who says Obama can't inspire conservatives?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Misleading title. There can’t be any anti-RKBA “experts”, because the Constitution is clear on that right. There are lying gun-grabbers, but no “experts”.


7 posted on 11/17/2009 11:02:48 AM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

“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.”

I would say this affirms our rights. Armed militias cannot be formed unless those joining the militia possess the arms in the first place. Regulated or not. If a militia is forming to prevent the abuses of gov’t, it would make no sense allowing the gov’t to control the arms the militia would require. JMT


8 posted on 11/17/2009 11:03:22 AM PST by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
Absolutely. The Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. It does not grant such a right. The opinion of the courts does not count.

And oh by the way, automatic weapons are protected just as much as semi-automatic. If a soldier can carry it into battle, it should be available for home use.

9 posted on 11/17/2009 11:03:36 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
The Constitution which is the ultimate authority gives us the right to bear arms...

Suggested correction: The Second Ammendment ACKNOWLEGES our right to keep and bear arms, and forbids the infringing of that right.

10 posted on 11/17/2009 11:05:13 AM PST by 1_Of_We
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the “states”.

EXACTLY!!

11 posted on 11/17/2009 11:05:38 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
And oh by the way, automatic weapons are protected just as much as semi-automatic. If a soldier can carry it into battle, it should be available for home use.

In fact, at the time of the revolution and writing of the Constitution, the citizens had more advanced fire arms than did the military.

12 posted on 11/17/2009 11:07:12 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent
If they had meant ‘Militia’ in place of ‘People’, as in: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. “

Then the founding fathers should have said ‘Militia’.

It doesn't so you Statists can choke on it, okay?

How's about we make a deal with the Statists, that if they push this too far, incrementally chipping away at this right – paperwork for every firearm transaction, registration..

That after we send them off to one of their favorite Statist utopias like Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela, we PROMISE to rewrite the 2nd amendment just as:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That should make all of us happy – they can exist in a third world Statist h*ll hole and we don't have to hear their moronic talking points about militias and such, problem solved.

13 posted on 11/17/2009 11:28:27 AM PST by GYL2 (Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Exactly, no need for an expert to weigh in ...unless they want to twit the heck out of the plain meanings.

The Constitution isn;t a document which limits the individual...it limits govt. However, the experts have tried to redefine even that.


14 posted on 11/17/2009 11:32:45 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I would like to add that if “Scary-looking” becomes some sort of standard of illegality, Frau Botox should start getting worried.


15 posted on 11/17/2009 11:32:55 AM PST by GYL2 (Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

Talk as they will. “They” are not blind to the fact Americans are arming themselves like never before.
What “they” will do is to single out any person/persons who attempt to organize and make a severe example out of them/him/her. It will happen.

There are those who have not forgotten Waco and what an out of control government will do to us. The present regime is hell bent on destroying what is left of the Republic.

We have one more mid-term and one more general election to make the changes we need. After that.....history will be interesting.


16 posted on 11/17/2009 11:35:14 AM PST by LFOD (Presently - Back in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

Bingo!


17 posted on 11/17/2009 12:17:33 PM PST by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Be_Politically_Erect

Damn right.


18 posted on 11/17/2009 2:55:04 PM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
The New York Times retorted:

The Constitution of the United States . . . provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But this restriction is . . . a restriction upon the power of the United States alone, and gave to James Lewis no protection against the law of Mississippi, which deprived him, because of his color, of a right which every white man possessed.

Mr. Browning’s Letter and Judge Handy’s Decision, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 28, 1866, at 4, col. 1; see discussion, supra, at 14.

From document page 38, my pdf page 56 of 91, from Gura's Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago, linked in comment# 1.

19 posted on 11/17/2009 3:43:43 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"If a soldier can carry it into battle, it should be available for home use. "

I believe you are limiting your options with a statement like that.

If I have to acquire a modern truck to pull my old 12 pounder to the front, why can I not procure a modern howitzer and do the same?

Just ask-en mind you. I'm gonna keep the howitzer no mater what.

20 posted on 11/17/2009 4:12:52 PM PST by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the “states”.

The Bill of Rights protects the states from federal tyranny every bit as much as it protects individual citizens from federal tyranny. Unfortunately, the BoR has somewhat eroded over time, thanks to judicial activism.

But the Second Amendment is clearly a protection of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The militia is the citizenry. People who don't understand this need to learn about how the Revolutionary War was fought.
21 posted on 11/17/2009 5:06:36 PM PST by Terpfen (FR is being Alinskied. Remember, you only take flak when you're over the target.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One notes that the 2nd Amendment does NOT say ,
“...,the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms...”.


22 posted on 11/17/2009 5:41:42 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man
An Old Man said: "I believe you are limiting your options with a statement like that."

Yours is a good point.

The cannon used by our Founders to eject their own government's navy from Boston Harbor were taken by force from their own government's Fort Ticonderoga.

The American Revolution was not a war between America and Great Britain. It was a revolution carried out by freedom-loving individuals against THEIR OWN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

When Paul Revere rode to warn the countryside that an attack was planned on the people, he yelled out, not "The British are coming!", but "The Regulars are coming!"; meaning the regular army of his own government.

23 posted on 11/17/2009 9:53:34 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
See, it just depends upon which vantage point you choose to view things from.

Although I am An Old Man, I must confess that I was not present on the night of Mr. Revere's ride, and cannot state with any certanty exactly what he said. The Phrase "the British are coming" is generally attributed to a fellow by the name of Longfellow, you may have heard about him. If not, you can read some about this historic ride made famous in Longfellow's famous poem "Paul Revere's Ride" (1863) HERE.

24 posted on 11/18/2009 7:38:24 AM PST by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GYL2
Not mine but interesting nonetheless:

In order to REGULATE (keep in check, challenge) the militia, the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose.

25 posted on 11/18/2009 11:30:35 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9 (Bread and Circuses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tet68
-- One notes that the 2nd Amendment does NOT say,
"... the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms...".
--

Although one should be mindful that "militia" comprises all able-bodied people. There is a tendency to conflate "militia" with "organized militia," and overlook that "militia" is nearly synonymous with "the people."

26 posted on 11/18/2009 11:38:47 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The People may make up the militia but they are not
OF the militia, they are free citizens First.Just like
our armed forces, the militia is a volunteer organization. If the second amendment only entitles the militia then
it should have said “..the right of the Militia...”
it clearly says “the right of the people...”, All of the people not just the ones that volunteer to serve in the militia.


27 posted on 11/18/2009 1:05:53 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

“militia” comprises all able-bodied people. There is a tendency to conflate “militia” with “organized militia,” and overlook that “militia” is nearly synonymous with “the people.”

Maybe I can make this clearer,

All able bodied people can make up the militia, but this
does not disbar the disabled or those who choose not to
join the militia, from keeping and bearing arms.


28 posted on 11/18/2009 1:09:43 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tet68
-- Just like our armed forces, the militia is a volunteer organization. --

"The militia" has two components, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. All able-bodied people are members of the unorganized militia. SCOTUS, in Presser v. Illinois said, "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states ..."

Similarly, Unites States Code at 10 USC 331 defines the militia as "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ..."

I agree with your point that the 2nd applies to "the people," and not just to those who are capable of bearing arms. My point was one of definition of the word "militia," noting that it is common for people to construe "militia" too narrowly, as meaning only those who have actually volunteered for duty.

29 posted on 11/18/2009 2:03:11 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: An Old Man
Phrase "the British are coming" is generally attributed to a fellow by the name of Longfellow

Who was writing poetry, not historical documentation. That's merely one thing he got wrong, as your link states, the poem is "generally inaccurate".

Revere would not have said "The British are Comming", or the "English", because they considered themselves to be Englishmen, and were, on April 19, 1775, trying to assert their rights as Englishmen. They were not (yet and with some exceptions, notably Sam Adams and perhaps Ben Franklin) trying to separate themselves from the Mother Country.

30 posted on 11/18/2009 4:44:59 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Lawyer Alan Gura says that owning semi-automatic guns is constitutional.

As if the Constitution was about what individulas can or cannot do. It's about how the federal government is organized, what its powers are, what it's relationship to the states is, and what the states are forbidden from doing.

It would be much more accurate to say that the Gura said that the Constitution protects the individual ownership of scary looking semi-automatic firearms. (Of course in reality it protects the ownership (keeping) of arms of all sorts. Swords, axes, firearms, and cannon armed ships. (That can be verified by reference to the power of Congress to grant letters of marque, which authorized people to use their privately owned ships to attack ships of enemy powers, and seize their cargoes, which would not make much sense if individuals, or groups, could not own such ships. One did not need the letter to own the ships or the cannon to arm them with, just to use them in a form of legalized piracy.)

31 posted on 11/18/2009 4:57:49 PM PST 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: Maverick68
The Constitution which is the ultimate authority gives us the right to bear arms...

Thomas Jefferson would disagree, as do I.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

The Constitution *protects* or in Jefferson's word "secures" the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not create it. If it did, it might say something like: "... the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms". Instead it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The very grammar assumes the right exists, and that it belongs to the people. The second amendment commands that it "shall not be infringed".

32 posted on 11/18/2009 5:12:01 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
EXACTLY!!

Actually the 10th amendment, generally considered part of the Bill of Rights, does protect the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

It protects their powers, but they have no rights. Only people have rights, not governments.

33 posted on 11/18/2009 5:16:01 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LFOD

Remember the quote ! “ I regret that I only have but one life to give for my country !” Multiply that about 40 million times!


34 posted on 11/18/2009 5:26:29 PM PST by Renegade (You go tell my buddies om Planet' and " Battle of the Worlds " on Blu-ray ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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