'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.

[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.

[bIlluminati]

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

Um, except that the people's militia in Lexington and Concord were parading the town square with cannon.

Now, I might consider outlawing biological on nuclear weapons (because you can't point them at somebody's head). But both have been used on the battlefield. You don't hear about the biological weapons much. Helps to read what isn't said sometimes.

[Jim Noble]

If the supreme court could remove the 2nd amendment rights how about the first?

The Supreme Court cannot remove any rights.

[highlander_UW]

The Supreme Court cannot remove any rights.

The democrats appear to believe that they can both create and remove or modify rights.