Skip to comments.Guns and the Constitution - Is the Second Amendment an individual, or collective, right?
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 ...
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:
Let’s hope he knows what he is talking about.
“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!!! ;-)
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.
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?
“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.
I defer to your excellent judgment, sir.