'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.

[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.