Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The same thing that makes them useful to criminals makes them useful for little old ladies protecting themselves against criminals as well: They are small, easy to operate, and powerful enough to do the job. Self-defense is important as well, and I think the framers understood that.
That was talked about actually in the decision around page 50 to 54 (I think it was without looking it up again) when it was talking about the equipment required for milita.
I can't remember if they were citing previous rulings or making their own comments.
The basic impression I got was that small arms (rifles, pistols etc) that could be used by an individual were covered, but larger arms were not as those were to be provided by the actual military, BUT for militia use.
Thanks for the correction. :-)
I just heard This on the radio. Great news!
There's promise there, but the fight ain't over yet.
Bad news for the left, the Brady bunch...and over zealous politicians in general. Might not have to vote from the roof tops after all...
5.56mm
Bush II's legacy, despite a few setbacks, will be reigning in the activist courts.
Sometimes I'm frightened when DU and FR are in accord over a subject. Happens from time to time, but it always makes me take a second to check my premises. :-)
"It was not the intent of the founders to force the states to apply the federal bill of rights.
Yes. It was."
Tell it to the courts.
the right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. - US v Cruikshank
"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. " - Presser v Illanois
"it is now well settled that the amendments to the Constitution of the United States of March 4 1789, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the United States. - Hill v State of Georgia
The first two are US Supreme Court decisions...that was the state of the law until the Courts began to read and incorporate intent of the 14th.
With the difference being that the 5th circuit ruled against Emersson. The "individual right" interpretation in Emerson *could* be said, and has been by some, to be dicta. Not so in this case, the individual right interpretation is central to the ruling.
If the Supreme Court won't hear and resolve this clear difference between the circuits, they should all be impeached, and new set of Justices brought in who will do their job. (Yea, I know, not doing their job is not generally considered grounds for impeachment. But it should be! It's certainly not "Good Behavior".
Or, be like Bobby and keep being wrong...
It follows that the weapons described in the Act were in "common use" at the time, particularly when one considers the widespread nature of militia duty. Included among these militia weapons were long guns (i.e., muskets and rifles) and pistols. Moreover, the Act distinguishes between the weapons citizens were required to furnish themselves and those that were to be supplied by the government. For instance, with respect to an artillery private (or "matross"), the Act provides that he should "furnish himself with all the equipments of a private in the infantry, until proper ordnance and field artillery is provided." The Act required militiamen to acquire weapons that were in common circulation and that individual men would be able to employ, such as muskets, rifles, pistols, sabres, hangers, etc., but not cumbersome, expensive, or rare equipment such as cannons.
Sorry, thanks.
The the article said, "The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State."
Leaving me, therefore, to conclude that they considered DC a "state" for this ruling. (ie., the ruling applies to the states, we reject the argument that the ruling doesn't apply to DC, ergo, DC is a state).
That much is very obvious.
... but I assume they said the second amendment applies to the states?
No. It said it applies as a protection for an Individual Right, regardless of which State or District they live in or whether or not they are in a "militia".
Your wish is my command, m'lady.
The Brady Bunch's wailing on the ruling
And finally The Ruling Itself Right from the uscourts.gov site.
OUTSTANDING!!!
Yes, I'm munching on my humble pie as we speak.
I'll no longer be able to post that the federal courts have ruled 50-1 in favor of the collective right over individual rights. I'll have to use 50-2 from now on.
"Once this is upheld - and it can't be overturned without calling into question ... "
Yes it can. It can be overturned by the DC Court of Appeals en banc or by the 4th Circuit.
Uh, overturned by the 4th Circuit? Where are you getting that from?
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.