Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guns and the Constitution - Is the Second Amendment an individual, or collective, right?
OpinionJournal.com ^ | November 24, 2007 | The Editors

Posted on 11/24/2007 12:34:43 AM PST by gpapa

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.

That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; dc; guns; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-59 last
To: PLMerite
Amen
51 posted on 11/24/2007 6:33:57 PM PST by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini

Exactly.


52 posted on 11/24/2007 8:56:13 PM PST by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

This man was on Tammy Bruce’s show this PM. He seems to think that the way the complaint was worded assures a majority opinion against the DC gun ban. He thinks maybe as hisgh as a 7-2 vote killing the DC bill. He has a site and is following the story:

http://www.saf.org/

Let’s hope he knows what he is talking about.


53 posted on 11/24/2007 9:12:49 PM PST by casino66 ( If I vote Dem I'll get everything 'free')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

Bingo!!!

“Nail on the proverbial head, post of the day!”

You’d almost bring to a halt the whole process this is going to encounter if they let you argue that one point before the court...

You would make the government look really stoopid if you got the chance though...

I’d pay money for tickets to just watch!!! ;-)


54 posted on 11/25/2007 4:49:31 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
My question begins the premise that if you fulfill certain criteria, there is absolutely no question whatsoever, regardless of legal approach/theory, that you fit the militia clause. Failure to fit that criteria does NOT mean you're not a fit, it simply means that there are some legal theories (albeit stupid ones) that argue otherwise and which (bizzarely) currently have some leverage.

No, I'm not making this stuff up. The current federal definition of "militia member" explicitly includes the category I presented; ergo, if you fit that category, then there is no question of a fit.

At 59, you're outside that particular category, but fit others. Yes, you fit the "militia clause".

According to what you wrote, only males 17-45 should have firearms?

No, that's NOT what I wrote!!! You asked a question, and I gave an incomplete answer - do not extrapolate that to answer a question that wasn't asked.

The 2ndA plainly says "THE PEOPLE" have that right - and that right is NOT contingent on the militia clause.

55 posted on 11/26/2007 7:07:35 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

Of course the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right to keep and bear arms.
Ya don’t expect a single person to handle a crew-served weapon, right?

;-)


56 posted on 11/26/2007 7:19:08 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
I understand the concept of a crew-served weapon. Other than in the organization of a State and Federal sanctioned National Guard, does that permit me to create my own private militia equipped with such weapons?
57 posted on 11/26/2007 7:31:03 AM PST by gpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Here's a nice summary from the most recent news release Second Amendment Foundation:

“An affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court will probably not be the death knell for the extremist citizen disarmament movement,” Gottlieb said, “but it will properly cripple their campaign to destroy an important civil right, the one that protects all of our other rights. The insidious effort to strip American citizens of their firearms rights, while at the same time permanently harming public safety must end.

I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental right of all, the very foundation of a free society.

If there comes a day that the GCA and the NFA are finally extinguished, then that truly will be the greatest day for American liberty.

58 posted on 11/26/2007 7:48:33 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

I defer to your excellent judgment, sir.


59 posted on 11/26/2007 8:07:02 AM PST by RatRipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-59 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson