Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
For some 30 years, the District of Columbia has banned handgun ownership for private citizens. It was approved by that city's council in the wake of terrible gun violence and a rising murder rate in the nation's capital.
The ban has stood through this time with other council votes, but without any official review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sometime next year, the high court will make a ruling on whether that law is constitutional.
It is surprising to us that it has taken this long for the court to get this case. It would seem that it would have gone to the highest appeal long before now. We do not understand all the legal entanglements that must have kept it off the court's docket, but it is certainly there now.
And now, if the court is acting properly, the D.C. gun ban should be struck down.
This is a clear case of constitutionality, not politics, not conservative or liberal. If Constitution's Bill of Rights clearly allows gun private gun ownership anywhere — and we believe it does — then it allows it in the District of Columbia.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is what the Second Amendment says, and there seems to be little "wiggle" room in that statement.
In some instances — Washington, D.C. being one of them — we admit we despair of so many guns in the hands of so many people who would use them the wrong way, but the answer is not to abrogate the Constitution.
If one portion of the Bill of Rights can be limited by a local government, why can't another? There is no logic in saying on the Second Amendment is up for local review. To continue to allow this is to invite a city council or state legislature somewhere to decide that the First Amendment is too broad, or that the Fourth Amendment is too restrictive on law enforcement.
We know there are passionate arguments for gun control and that is part of the problem: The passion has blotted out clear thinking. This time the NRA is right. The law should go.
LOL — being called ignorant by RP is like being called fat by Michael Moore.
Brilliant. It isn't the arm that is G-d given it is the right to keep and bear it.
Because God hates you.
No, I think he knows I'll protect his children and you won't. Or at least it sounds like you'd prefer that no one will. Have I got that right?
You should put on a black robe and join the 9th circuit.
So you are saying that being in a militia is a requisite to the right to keep and bear arms?
Nope. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It's not "given" to you when you join the Militia.
I did say, however, that the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for members of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringeent.
Maybe, oh, 40 times now.
IOW... you are saying that while it is an individual Right, that you need to be in a militia to exercise it or else the Feds and States can bloody well infringe it all they want.
Which is exactly what groanup just said you said.
So your assertion is that Congress is not required to maintain a Navy? It uses the same words in regards to a militia
"Congress shall have power... To provide and maintain a Navy"
"Congress shall have power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia"
Do we need a Constitutional amendment to force Congress to maintain a Navy? Because your assertion is that the second amendment is what forces Congress to provide for the militia.
Inconsistency once again. Again, stupidest argument on Freerepublic ever (and I'll go all the way back to Ash in that assertion.)
Yes. It is your assertion they must?
Congress has the power to declare war. I guess, according to you, they must. Against who?
"Because your assertion is that the second amendment is what forces Congress to provide for the militia."
It is?
I clearly told you, in a post to you, "Since the power was concurrent, the states themselves could arm their Militia. The second amendment protected their ability to do so."
The second amendment was written to protect the states' ability to arm their own militias. Yet you read that as the second amendment forces Congress to provide for the Militia.
How do you do that? How can you you look at what I posted and be so utterly and completely wrong? Is there something wrong with you? Seriously. You need help.
Go get some and I'll see you on the next thread. Good luck and good bye.
Is that not saying that being in a militia is requisite to enjoying the right to keep and bear? And if not, why not?
Yes. It is your assertion they must?
And with that answer from robertpaulsen, I rest my case.
Actually, it appears to be considerably more restrictive than that. It says you must be a memeber of a "well regulated state militia". You don't have the right to keep and bear arms until you are already trained and proficient in the use of those arms. It's kind of like requiring a tax stamp, and then not printing any.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
Meh... no need to wade through a sewer to confirm that it’s a foul experience. We get all the Brady propaganda and talking points from Bobby...
I just never realized how verbatim we were getting them.
Fregards
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.