[neverdem]

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that 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: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

[goldstategop]

No one has the right to abrogate the Bill Of Rights even to advance a policy objective. Case closed.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[robertpaulsen]

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is what the Second Amendment says"

No, it doesn't.

[umgud]

The 2A wasn’t contingent on future emotions, body counts or hyped stats.

[El Gato]

This is a clear case of constitutionality, not politics, not conservative or liberal. If Constitution's Bill of Rights clearly allows protects gun private gun ownership anywhere — and we believe it does — then it allows protects it in the District of Columbia.

Fixed it. The Bill of Rights, protects rights and reserves powers, it doesn't "grant" or "allow" anything.

[GourmetDan]

Could go the wrong way guys.

The Supremes could rule that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Congress and that cities and states can legislate whatever they want.

Course, DC’s special status could also figure in.

[navyguy]

This guy gets it.

[RetiredArmy]

"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.

Duh, actually THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM in that statement. "Shall not be infringed" is as clear as Hillary Klinton is a socialist's slut. We all KNOW how clear that is. Same thing. Clear as her intentions to turn this Republic into a Soviet Union West.

[Gondring]

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)

[GregoryFul]

D.C. gun ban clearly violates 2nd Amendment

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.

[Radix]

Clearly the Right for individuals to bear arms is obvious in the Constitution.

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.

[Eric Blair 2084]

If the SCOTUS rules against us we can all start our own State militias.

[Jim Noble]

I've got a contrary question:

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.

[thefactor]

the framers knew that our free society would change. that is why the constitution is a living document.

perhaps they put in the general term "the people" because the knew those who constitute "the people" might change as time went on.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The left wants to take guns from normal people while leaving them in the hands of the underclass, so that the underclass can use them safely to take money from the normal people.
A form of income redistribution.

[roamer_1]

D.C. gun ban clearly violates 2nd Amendment

Every gun ban clearly violates the 2nd Amendment

[MarkL]

I particularly liked the defense of the ban, where some booger eating moron stated that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply in Washington, DC, since it's NOT a state... Maybe we could strike down the rest of the Constitution for DC as well... I say we allow the quartering of troops in the homes of dems! And allow "cruel and unusual punishments! Oh, sorry... The quartering of troops in the homes of dems WOULD be cruel and unusual punishment... For the troops!

Mark

[antinomian]

Has everyone seen the 8yrs old with an AR-15 video yet? I know there are others but this one is recent and too cute to miss.

[Impugn]

Everybody knows that the Second Amendment is exclusively to protect the right to hunt deer and shoot clay pigeons. Duh.