Second wind for the Second (Amendment)

The Washington Times ^ | March 16, 2007 | Jacob Sullum

[neverdem]

Last week, when a federal appeals court ruled that the District of Columbia's gun ban violates the right to "keep and bear arms," The New York Times reported that the judges were "interpreting the Second Amendment broadly." If they had interpreted the amendment in the normal, mainstream way, according to the Times, they would have concluded it imposes no restrictions on gun control because it has nothing to do with individual rights.

    This oddly bifurcated view of an enumerated constitutional right helps explain why the gun-control debate in this country is so acrimonious. When one side considers the Second Amendment a nullity and the other side thinks it counts for something, there is no safe middle ground.

    If a court takes the position that Americans have a right to free speech, it is not interpreting the First Amendment broadly. If it says they have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is not interpreting the Fourth Amendment broadly. So why is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit "interpreting the Second Amendment broadly" when it says Americans have a right to keep and bear arms?

    The court did not say Americans have a right to own anti-aircraft missiles or nuclear warheads. It did not even say they have a right to carry guns publicly (although that does seem to be implied by the "bear" part). It said they have a right to keep guns in their own homes for self-protection.

    The D.C. law makes that impossible. It bans handguns not registered by 1976, except for those owned by retired police officers; prohibits carrying a handgun, even from one room to another, without a license that cannot be obtained; and requires that all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns...

[neverdem]

Read the decision.

It was an unexpected joy to read!

[Centurion2000]

"interpreting the Second Amendment broadly."

A liberal strict-constructionist interpretation? Wow, there's a Bizarro thought.

[beltfed308]

It was an unexpected joy to read!

Agreed. I have read it 3 times today. A great "pick me up" when things look grim.

[PsyOp]

It's about damn time!

The Second Amendment - Commentaries
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016481/posts

[AZRepublican]

Bet the ruling gets overturned decisively.

[amchugh]

I bet the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.

[AZRepublican]

Well before it reaches the SCOTUS, I'd be watching for review before the entire DC circuit.

[Jack Black]

We'd be one step closer to the unmentionable should that happen.

[neverdem]

Bet the ruling gets overturned decisively.

By whom and how much?

Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional

The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.

Read the decision. It's rather comprehensive and airtight, IMHO.

[Alberta's Child]

This oddly bifurcated view of an enumerated constitutional right helps explain why the gun-control debate in this country is so acrimonious. When one side considers the Second Amendment a nullity and the other side thinks it counts for something, there is no safe middle ground.

In the face of all the accusations and statements about "single-issue voters" I've read here over the last few months, I suspect this is precisely why NRA-types have been such vocal opponents of Rudy Giuliani. There is absolutely no point in compromising your views to support someone who gets such a basic, fundamental issue completely wrong.

[AZRepublican]

...have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.”

...take the musket from the shoulders of our brave black soldiers, deny them the constitutional right to keep and bear arms...

[neverdem]

It's one of the reasons I have no enthusiasm for Rudy, the statist.

[neverdem]

...take the musket from the shoulders of our brave black soldiers, deny them the constitutional right to keep and bear arms...

You lost me. Could you explain that statement?

[LibKill]

If Rudycrat had appointed the judges they would have murdered the gun-owner.

[AZRepublican]

>You lost me. Could you explain that statement?

Sure, see here.

[Herakles]

I find it odd that the idiot liberals who live in non fly over country think that their gun laws do anything to stop criminals who don't give a crap about restrictions on the 2nd - how dumb can you get (apparently, real freakin dumb - must be due to the degradation in the gene pool from all that free sex in the 60's).

Law biding citizens should be armed to the teeth to protect themselves while the gang bangers do us a public service by killing each other.

[MD_Willington_1976]

Search out HR1022...

Dems want all your guns, even grandpas shotgun and boltgun...

The next AWB has very little to do with the BS PC term "Assualt Weapons"

---

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced In Congress;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban


On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced;

H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”

McCarthy’s verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by “assault weapons ban” is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation’s murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy’s “other purposes” would make matters even worse.

H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

• Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

• Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

• All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip,” and would also ban their main component, called the “receiver.”)

• All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip.”

• Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”)



• Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn’t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

• 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned “assault weapon” with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers.

Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period,

H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 1022!

---

[GAB-1955]

"I find it odd that the idiot liberals who live in non fly over country think that their gun laws do anything to stop criminals who don't give a crap about restrictions on the 2nd..."

I don't think it's that as much as police departments love gun laws. They're great to create holding offenses for guys you want off the street and to tack a few extra years on a sentence.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link. Do you think Ginsburg, Scalia and Souter will reverse their opinions from 1998?

[VOA]

bump