'Right To Bear Arms' Means Just That

Investors.com ^ | March 3, 2010 | INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Staff

[Kaslin]

Otis McDonald, 76, stands before the Supreme Court, which Tuesday heard arguments in his suit to overturn Chicago's handgun ban

Gun Rights: Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of four Chicago residents led by homeowner McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's three-decade-old ban on owning handguns.

In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian, 32-year-old ban on the private ownership of handguns. Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The joy of Second Amendment defenders was short-lived. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.

According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.

"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," he wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state."

We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. Surely he can't be serious.

[Red in Blue PA]

According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.

If ever a man was beggin for a lobotomy, it is this man!

[dynachrome]

“but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. Surely he can’t be serious”

Sure he is serious. Why not get rid of that pesky 1st amendment next?

[Neidermeyer]

I’m not from Chicago but if the law there for the last 30 years was against handgun ownership (as stated in the IBD article) why didn’t someone start a handgun leasing business... say a one time upfront payment equal to what you’d pay to purchase elsewhere with 99 year terms???

[Repeal The 17th]

“If ever a man was beggin for a lobotomy, it is this man! “
-
I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

[highlander_UW]

In a 5-4 decision...

What is frightening is that there are 4 supreme court justices that voted to remove our second amendment rights. If the supreme court could remove the 2nd amendment rights how about the first?

[DuncanWaring]

Why not get rid of that pesky 1st amendment next?

Already started.

"McCain-Feingold".

[Le Chien Rouge]

Otis McDonald, you have my support!!

[dynachrome]

At least the Supremes killed part of it. Not a sure thing with obozo appointing Lord knows what to the court over the next 3 years.

[muir_redwoods]

The law was aimed at handgun possession. Leased or purchased, if it is in your possession, you are in violation.

[Red in Blue PA]

Technically, cops should be in violation.

Equal Protection and all that jazz.....

[muir_redwoods]

The same laws that allow cops to break the traffic laws allow them to carry. That’s why these people are known as fascists

[1010RD]

We need simple bumper stickers that say:

“Thank you Otis McDonald”

Let ‘em ask why.

[Red in Blue PA]

Excellent idea.

[SunkenCiv]

Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.

[IGOTMINE]

OTIS! My man!

[chargers fan]

Surely he can’t be serious

He is, and don't call me Shirley

[dynachrome]

“I picked a bad time to give up sniffing glue”

[brent13a]

"The same laws that allow cops to break the traffic laws allow them to carry. That’s why these people are known as fascists"

Wow, so who would you call if someone broke into your residence or vehicle? Who would you call if someone kidnapped your child or murdered one of your parents? Would you call 'the fascists'?

[TankerKC]

Wow, so who would you call if someone broke into your residence or vehicle?

Have you ever called? I have. They don't do anything.

Who would you call if someone kidnapped your child or murdered one of your parents?

Dubois Family Watched Gardner After Girl's Disappearance

[muir_redwoods]

It wasn’t me that confused the lawmakers with the cops. It was you.

[Manta]

Can my State opt out of the 16th amendment (income tax)?

[LibertarianInExile]

So the question I have is this: there have been serious infringements on the clear language of the Second Amendment in the past, no doubt. Check your guns at the town marshal’s office. Felons don’t get to bear arms. How do you reconcile this legally with the law?

I’ve discussed this issue with you before, DC, and I came around to your way of thinking on incorporation. I have an open mind on this and actually think that probably both the practices above are overreaching. But I’d like to hear you reconcile those practices with an expansive reading of the people’s right to bear arms, if that is possible.

[reefdiver]

What an interesting idea, Has it worked elsewhere with similar laws

[Doe Eyes]

Are there (as we interpret the Constitution), and should there be, any limitations on the rights of private citizens (not state militia’s) to bear any kind of arms?

[Sola Veritas]

“Are there (as we interpret the Constitution), and should there be, any limitations on the rights of private citizens (not state militia’s) to bear any kind of arms?”

Personally, IMO the intent was to allow the common citizen to possess what were considered to be military “arms” (AKA weapons) common to the individual soldier. The British attempted to disarm the American Colonists at Lexington because they were building up a supply of muskets. At that time, muskets were smoothbore firearms that served no purpose but to be used in line of battle in the military. A “rifle” was useless for this purpose.

That being the case, my view is that any law abiding citizen should be able to possess current individual soldier type firearms. Today that would be an M16 type weapon, etc. (the “so-called” assault weapons). Personally, I have no problem with restrictions on weapons far beyond individual use (AKA a cannon, crew served machine gun, etc.). Those are reasonable restriction IMO. However, to restrict handguns, a common military weapon, is not in keeping with the original intent of the 2nd Ammendment.

That is my spin and opinion....there are some here that think they should be able to possess a thermonuclear device if they want.....that is a little too over the top..IMO.

[Dead Corpse]

If you commit a crime, you are subject to due process of law. As part of incarceration punishment, certain of your Rights are restricted. You've proven yourself a danger to others, as punishment you lose some of your Rights.

Once punishment is up, you should get your Rights back. I don't agree with the way the system is currently set up. I think it sets the stage for our very high recidivism rates. Couple that with anti-gun legislation keeping victims from ventilating their attackers, and you get what we have today.

It's not a comfortable fit. But when you commit a crime against someone, you are first violating their Rights. Hence we feel justified in removing your Rights as punishment.

[2harddrive]

POSESSION inside the city limits was what was actually banned. A Chicagoan COULD own a handgun, if he left it in Texas, for example.

[Doe Eyes]

Personally, I have no problem with restrictions on weapons far beyond individual use (AKA a cannon, crew served machine gun, etc.). Those are reasonable restriction

IMO. ....there are some here that think they should be able to possess a thermonuclear device if they want.....that is a little too over the top..

So, you think we should restrict arms based on what you think, instead of what the Constitution says.

How is that different from the Liberals?

[editor-surveyor]

"Wow, so who would you call if someone broke into your residence or vehicle?"

The garbage co. to pickup the residue.

Statists are disgusting.

[editor-surveyor]

"Can my State opt out of the 16th amendment (income tax)?"

The 16th was never ratified, so yes, if they wish to make that an issue they can.

[SunkenCiv]

;’) Maybe it’ll turn out that the Daley administration has had him on Double Secret Probation all this time.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Personally, I have no problem with restrictions on weapons far beyond individual use (AKA a cannon, crew served machine gun, etc.). Those are reasonable restriction IMO.”

In the Constitution the Founders allowed for Letters of Marque from which follows the private ownership of armed ships and the arms on such ships have to be sufficient to affect other ships so they have to be “big”. That means cannons in both olden times and modern times plus I’d think crew served machine guns would also fit that bill in modern times.

[Gilbo_3]

define 'felon'...doesnt matter anyways, cause if they are released to walk the street with my kids, shouldnt they be considered 'free'???

if they arent trustworthy enough to be on the streets with access to any 'arms' imaginable, why are they allowed access to my kids ???

as for the town marshalls office, Im assuming that the ole marshall has a gun or two also, whats he skeered of if a citizen is in his presence ???

how about we not be forced to waste our time in his office in the first place over trivial infractions for revenue generation and the pyramids of liscenses, permits and fee ???

how about schools too ??? id rather a parent or teacher be equipped to shot a whackjob, rather than curling up in the corner waitin to die...

name it, Ill prolly tell ya to expect, if not demand that FRee citizens are armed there, and see the benefits always outweighin the negatives...

my .02

[Joe Brower]

[from occupied ga]

Wow, so who would you call if someone broke into your residence or vehicle?

Smith and Wesson

[1010RD]

Thanks, do you know of a FReeper who could put it into action?

[Stentor]

Wow, so who would you call if someone broke into your residence or vehicle?

For this kind of stuff they're only an intermediary between you and your insurance company. For the other stuff, they may occasionally find a body.

[Red in Blue PA]

You can set up a free accout ant cafepress.com and make your own bumper stickers for free, get a profit off of them, and never even physically make one!

[mad_as_he$$]

Sorry but there legal theory and precedent that he is right. “Incorporation” is a real thing in law and where you agree with it or not it is at the root of many gun rights (and others) argument.We could easily wind up with the Bill of Rights applying ONLY to DC and other Federal possessions.

[Clump]

They can’t remove any of our right with an opinion thanks to an armed populace. Even a ruling against the Second Amendment followed by a federal gun ban will be hard to enforce.

[wastedyears]

The Second Amendment provided no limitations on the ownership of arms, and they specifically wrote ‘arms’, which meant cannons then, and it would mean cannons today too. Full autos, grenade launchers, full auto shotguns, suppressors, grenades, everything under the sun.

[blackie]

Be Ever Vigilant!

[El Gato]

Personally, IMO the intent was to allow the common citizen to possess what were considered to be military “arms” (AKA weapons) common to the individual soldier. The British attempted to disarm the American Colonists at Lexington because they were building up a supply of muskets. At that time, muskets were smoothbore firearms that served no purpose but to be used in line of battle in the military. A “rifle” was useless for this purpose.

Well not exactly. There were "sharpshooter units" in both the Continental and British forces. One British sharpshooter "passed" on a shot at G. Washington, not knowing who the officer was. Bad move.

Plus many folks hunted with their muskets. They used them like shotguns by loading shot. The same "ball" loads they used in the line would be quite good on deer sized game, but you'd have to get close, and "aim small".

The Regulars had to through Lexington, but their target was militia stores at Concord. These included musket balls, (the muskets were at the homes of the militiamen), powder, and other stores such as flour, preserved meats, tents. Most importantly, 3 cannon. Yes, crew served weapons. The regulars got some of the stuff, threw the musket balls in the mill pond. They got the carriages for the cannon, but not the cannon themselves. Those were hidden in furrows on the north side of the North Bridge, and then plowed over. The farmer was still in the field, plowing, when a detachment of regulars marched by. Here is one of those cannon, preserved to this day. The setting is a house/musem near the reconstructed North Bridge.

[El Gato]

Those were hidden in furrows on the north side of the North Bridge

Make that the west side, but it's also the north side at other spots along the river. I guess I was a little turned around when I was there on April 19, 1993. The roads are curvy. I also walked the reconstructed portion of the "Battle Road" between Lexington and Concord. I could imagine hiding behind a particular large boulder and firing at the Redcoats as they passed. Despite the fact the just over the low ridge that the road runs along, was the base housing area for Hanscom AFB. Between the ridge and the trees, you'd never know you where in 1993, if you didn't walk up that hill, which I did.

[Sola Veritas]

Wow, that is interesting.

[Sola Veritas]

“The Second Amendment provided no limitations on the ownership of arms, and they specifically wrote ‘arms’, which meant cannons then, and it would mean cannons today too. Full autos, grenade launchers, full auto shotguns, suppressors, grenades, everything under the sun.”

The possesion of a full auto rifle would be consistent with my view that an M16 type weapon was original intent. Now I don’t think that being part of the “militia” was or is a requirement to possess a firearm. However, the clause “a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state...” would suggest to me that WITH that right to keep and bear arms comes a duty to the larger community. Also, I believe “well regulated” means in our venacular...”a group of good marksmen.” Thus, I do not think that canon and grenades fall under 2nd ammendment protection (IMO and I’m not adamant that my opinion is correct). An individual has no need for anything beyond what would be consistent with him/her being able to help maintain a “well regulated militia”. Don’t misunderstand, I DO MOST DEFINITELY THINK the 2nd Ammendment is an individual right not to be infringed like it has in Chicago and California. However, I do not think it is reasonable to think the drafters of the Bill of Rights had any intention for an individual to have arms enough to form his/her own private army or beyond what an ordinary soldier would carry. Citizens were to suborndinate themselves to their community as potential parts of the militia. Thus, the 2nd ammendment protects individual rights but it also protects the larger community. It is both an individual and collective right. Over armed individuals is not necessariy in the communities interest. The rub is, and this is where the SCOTUS comes in, is what is over armed? I draw the line at allowing possession of firearms consistent with individual military service (IOW let citizens possess “assault weapons” is acceptable). However, grenades, howitzers, a tank, thermonuclear weapons, those cross the line. :-)

[wastedyears]

It being considered a collective right is why we’re at our current position today.

If it was just “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” there never, ever would have been a second thought as to its meaning, and I don’t think the National Guard would have been created, because it seems to me the National Guard was founded to become that “well-regulated militia.”

Everything government does is designed, in time, to rot away the liberties our Founding Fathers until at some crisis point, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are suspended by the federal government, and everybody that keeps saying they’re ‘mad as hell’ are left wandering around, scratching their heads and asking “what just happened?,” when the country should have acted after the National Firearms Act was passed.

For no reason should government at any level have tried to regulate and/or restrict our inalienable, God-given rights.

Unfortunately I’m not old enough to have purchased Solothurns through a magazine, but I’ll be damned if America falls through an act of government or a foreign aggressor.

[The Pack Knight]

That's a bit unfair to Judge Easterbrook. He was, after all, bound to follow Supreme Court precedent on the issue. The existing cases did not support incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms into the 14th Amendment, and Heller specifically did not address that issue.

It wasn't Easterbrook who said the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. It was John Marshall (who, last I checked, was considered a Founding Father), in Barron v. Baltimore. Barron v. Baltimore is still the law, and the only way any part of the Bill of Rights applies to the states is through the 14th Amendment, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held does not incorporate the entire Bill of Rights.

It wasn't Judge Easterbrook's place to ignore Supreme Court precedent and incorporate new rights into the 14th Amendment, nor was it his place to anticipate what the Supreme Court might have to say on the subject. That's the sort of thing the 9th Circuit does. He did his job.

[Hardastarboard]

Can my State opt out of the 16th amendment (income tax)?

That may be the best kill shot against gun grabbers that I've ever heard.