Skip to comments.D.C. gun ban clearly violates 2nd Amendment
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.
It’s rather amusing that we are considering the Second Amendment relevant, when so many FReepers make personal attacks against Ron Paul when he says we should follow the document.
If we aren’t going to amend it to fit what we want it to read (e.g., allowing the feds to meddle in state issues like education, etc.), then how can we claim that what it says has any meaning?
It seems to me that we should stand up for the Constitution, and if it’s not what we want, amend it...just ignoring it puts us at risk on the parts we DO like (and yes, I recognize the nature of my wording ...it’s partly to point out the hypocrisy of many on both the supposed Right and the Left)
The militia at the time of ratification was defined as all adult males, 16 and up, capable of serving, whether there was already a militia organization or not.
Except, of course, to the highly trained elite charged with "interpreting" the law to us peons; people so addled of mind, who have a hard time determining what the meaning of "is" is. And so are free of understanding what the ordinary man intends and grasps from the words.
Might as well toss a coin on any contest of ideas - or perhaps hire a prophet to read the entrails of a newly slaughtered goat. It could save a lot on the maintenance of a system of addled old twits to decide. And, it would at least half the time, come down on the right side.
Why does the naked emperor ride resplendently gowned through the city - because the people do not act in concert to recognize the farce and toss the cretins out. Our patriots did in 1776, but through lack of our vigilance, we've allowed the crud to grow all over us again, and mire us in pointless debate.
I think it does.
Now, if it said, "A well-armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free State ...", then I could agree with you. But it doesn't. The Founders believed that a well regulated Militia was necessary to the security of a free state, and that's what they wanted to protect. Not simply a gaggle of citizens with guns.
The Constitution has been amended by mutual agreement, such that women and blacks now come into the definition of “people”. Prior to amendment, those groups could be restricted, and were.
I understand your argument, and if the court chose to be very inflexible, it might agree.
However, the phrase “the people” appears 5 times in the Bill of Rights, and no one argues that in the 4 instances it’s used apart from the second amendment that it means anything other than ‘everyone’. The fourth amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “
No one would argue that the use of “the people” in this amendment was only intended to apply to ‘adult white males’. It’s difficult to see why they would not extend that same meaning to the 2nd amendment.
Anyway, the Bill of Rights did not restrict the people in their rights, it specifically stated what the government could not do. The second amendment was stated very forcibly - the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, and its meaning since has been eroded by idiots who would not understand and who would welcome tyranny vs. individual sovereignty - as was the reverberant theme of the revolution.
I noticed on ABC (so called) News tonight that certain of the cops down in Miami are apparently not interested in any of that.
Well, it seemed so from my chair.
You work for the government, don't you?
What is your point?
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her pantie hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
You just do this for the fun of it, don’t you! [chuckle]
If they'd meant the "right of the militia" they'd have said that. They instead said "right of the people".
The constitutions of many (most?) states, as well as the United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 331 state that the militia consists of practically everyone. The U.S. Code states that the militia consists of the organized and unorganized militia, with the organized part being the National Guard and Naval militia, whatever that is. All other males over 18 who are not in the organized militia are members of the unorganized militia. If the SC rules nobody can have a gun except militia members — well OK — we’re all in the militia anyway. Does the left get this?
If the SCOTUS rules against us we can all start our own State militias.
We agree (I think) that the first amendment bar to Congress restricting free speech is absolute,or nearly so.
Now, if the amendment read, "Free elections and political activity being necessary to a Free State, the right of the people to speak freely, shall not be infringed" would we not think that pornography could be outlawed?
My concern about the militia clause is simply that it must have a purpose - or else it would not be there.
Moot point notwithstanding, the Supremes at that time would NOT have recognized foreigners or blacks as protected by the BoR. But, the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens (”the people”) to keep and bear arms...we just define citizens differently today.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That would be a travesty, since this is about the only article of the Bill of Rights that doesn't specifically direct itself to The Congress. It simply says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I think "BY ANYBODY" is implied.
I'm sorry, but you are not allowed to argue that point so close to an election date. You are subjecting yourself to 1 year in jail and a $10,000 fine.
perhaps they put in the general term "the people" because the knew those who constitute "the people" might change as time went on.
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.