The right to arm

The Washington Times ^ | June 16, 2008 | Staff editorial

[neverdem]

Most Americans believe that owning a gun is the right of every citizen. According to a Gallup poll, 73 percent of the U.S. public believe that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to gun ownership. Therefore the Heller decision, which is expected any day now, could play a pivotal role in the 2008 presidential campaign. Former Ohio Secretary of State-turned-pundit Kenneth Blackwell calls it "the Roe v. Wade" of gun rights and suggests that the case (and its results) will ripple beyond District borders to impact "90 million American gun owners."

It was six D.C. residents, fed up with escalating crime and the inability to protect themselves in they city they love, who filed suit in 2003 to challenge the constitutionality of the District's ban on handguns. The lawsuit was dismissed but reversed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which found that the petitioner: 1) had standing to bring the lawsuit, 2) is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (handguns) and 3) therefore, the District "is not open to ban them."

Last year, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty failed in his petition to rehear the appeal, paving the way for both defendant and plantiffs to petition the Supreme Court. That brings us to where we are today, in the midst of a presidential election when opinions on every matter are measured at every turn and the issue of "gun rights" is beginning to weave its way in and out of the political debate.

Generally speaking, more gun owners identify as Republicans (53 percent) than identify as Democrats (39 percent), according to Gallup. And a Harris poll...

--snip--

The Gallup poll cited also found that the majority of Americans don't actually own a firearm (only 35 percent say they do)...

[neverdem]

Why should anyone tell this overbearing police/nanny state anything? It has ignored the Constitution.

Drat. It appears that the Washington Times gave up on printer friendly versions.

[skeeter]

Wait till the SCOTUS gets finished with this ruling. The geriatric liberal justices are desperate to leave their mark on society before they croak and are really on a leftwing tear.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The Gallup poll cited also found that the majority of Americans don't actually own a firearm (only 35 percent say they do)"

This should be corrected to say that only 35 percent admitted to owning a firearm to the Gallup polsters. I definitely own firearms and I would have been in the 65 percent in that poll....

[RC2]

If the Second Ammendment is such a big question concerning gun ownership, why not re-write it and spell it out before the left has a chance to kill all our rights? This would then take it out of the hands of the Supreme Court.

[Dilbert San Diego]

The language of the 2nd amendment seems pretty plain and clear.

I hope the court will find that we do have a right to keep and bear arms. The amendment says so. Liberals continally parse language and confuse issues by so doing. If they are intellectually honest, they would start a movement to repeal the 2nd amendment. Just saying, all of us who can read know what it means, and they should be honest enough to say they don’t want the people to be armed.

[2harddrive]

I might add to clarify what the article says: Many more people own guns, but do not admit to it, because of negative social presure in some cases, and to remain low-profile in case of eventual banning/confiscation by the Fed.gov, in other cases.

[Dead Corpse]

A bit of ignorance in the article.

Roe V Wade created new law from nothing.

RKBA is pre-existing, explicitly stated, and not subject to negotiation.

[ctdonath2]

Bring it on.
Heller is the line in the sand for many.

The real question in Heller is: will the gov't cooperate with the rules? If not, neither will others ... with grave consequences.

[Puppage]

and to remain low-profile in case of eventual banning/confiscation by the Fed.gov, in other cases.

If you purchased a gun in a gun store...they KNOW who you are. To think otherwise is false comfort.

[B4Ranch]

Those guns in the picture are the sorriest looking pieces I have ever seen. I wonder if they weren’t confiscated from DC residents.

[rahbert]

Other than the bound book, how would they know?
They don’t take copies of the book during inspections do they?

[Dead Corpse]

The feebies have already been caught keeping NIC's records. All turned in 4473's from FFL's forced out of business have been datawarehoused.

Bank on it...

[Dead Corpse]

Mr. McCain also joined close to 300 other lawmakers in signing a court brief which supported lifting the D.C. gun ban

Wasn't this the Amicus that stated RKBA was Individual, but that Fed Legislation should still be held "Constitutional"?

(Han Solo) "I've got a bad feeling about this..." (/Han Solo)

[Puppage]

Other than the bound book, how would they know?

How did the cop who stopped me know I had a CCW permit without me telling him?

[SECURE AMERICA]

Most Americans believe that owning a gun is the right of every citizen. According to a Gallup poll, 73 percent of the U.S. public believe that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to gun ownership.

WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT A POLL SAYS.
THE ADMENDMENT IS THERE. IN THE CONSTITUTION.
IT, THE ADMENDMENT, CLEARLY STATES ITS INTENT THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE NATION SHOULD HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
NOT TO HUNT -NEVER MENTIONED, NOT FOR PROTECTION - NEVER MENTIONED, SIMPLY AS A RIGHT. ONE ONLY NEED TO READ A LITTLE HISTORY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT THIS THE 2ND MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT. THEY KNEW WITHOUT ARMS THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE DEFEATED THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. THEY KNEW, FROM HISTORY, THAT NO PEOPLE HAD EVER GAINED THEIR FREEDOM WITHOUT FORCES OF ARMS. THEY KNEW FROM HISTORY THAT THE MOST POPULAR WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING FREE WAS TO KEEP THEM UNARMED.
tHESE SIMPLE TRUTHS YOUR GOVERNMENT QND COURTS NOW WANT YOU TO FORGET OR NOT SEE.
NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. IF YOU DO IT WILL NOT BE THE LAST RIGHT YOU LOSE...........

[Cobra64]

Drat. It appears that the Washington Times gave up on printer friendly versions.

Those are the only versions I link to emails. I hate all the advertising crap on the main pages.

[Cobra64]

If the Second Ammendment is such a big question concerning gun ownership, why not re-write it and spell it out before the left has a chance to kill all our rights?

Are you kidding? It would be re-written so as to say that gun ownership is illegal. The "Constitution is a living breathing document" mantra is a bunch of crap. Leave it alone.

[Cobra64]

I hope the court will find that we do have a right to keep and bear arms. The amendment says so. Liberals continally parse language and confuse issues by so doing. If they are intellectually honest, they would start a movement to repeal the 2nd amendment. Just saying, all of us who can read know what it means, and they should be honest enough to say they don’t want the people to be armed.

Bingo!

[Cobra64]

I might add to clarify what the article says: Many more people own guns, but do not admit to it, because of negative social presure in some cases, and to remain low-profile in case of eventual banning/confiscation by the Fed.gov, in other cases.

Very true. Most of my shooting buddies do not admit to firearms ownership outside of our group.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

The language of the 2nd amendment seems pretty plain and clear.

It is, until the SCOTUS has at it.

I hope the court will find that we do have a right to keep and bear arms. The amendment says so.

And that should be enough, in fact up until now it has been enough.

Liberals continally parse language and confuse issues by so doing.

Exactly what Supreme Court justices do best.

Whatever they say will thereafter have the force of law, and you know they cannot add to the rights in the Second Amendment. They can only subtract from them.

[swain_forkbeard]

“...why not re-write it and spell it out...?

Spell out what, exactly? Everybody seems to want it to be clear and simple, but it’s not.

[RWB Patriot]

“WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT A POLL SAYS.”

Because people think some things need to be popular or supported by a majority in order to be legal (Too bad the same idea isn’t applied to homosexual marriage), which is true in some cases...however, Constitutional freedoms are not one of those cases.

And polls matter to anti-gun fascists only because it helps them decide how to whine about them. If a majority of people support firearm ownership, they can push the “We must protect the rights of the minority” whine; if a minority support firearm ownership, they can push the “The majority have spoken and we must obey” crap.

[wastedyears]

***2) is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (handguns) and***

That would be a TOW missile launcher mounted on the bed of somebody’s pickup.

[wastedyears]

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust our current government in a Constitutional Convention.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"90 million American gun owners."????

More like 190 million gun owners.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“The Gallup poll cited also found that the majority of Americans don’t actually own a firearm (only 35 percent say they do)”

And nearly 25% of the population is under age 15. That means that 46% of the population over age 15 own a firearm.

[RKV]

Don’t know about you, but if some stranger asked me if I owned a gun, I would deny it. None of their business.

[An Old Man]

Let's see now. . .

Maybe they crosslink the Drivers License, Vehicle Registration and CCW Permit Application data bases. Na, they woulden't do that. Would they?

In addition to where you last used your credit card, they can also tell you what your mothers maiden name is and when your dog was born.

[neefer]

A friend of the family who was a police officer advised me to never register a firearm and to purchase privately.

[Cobra64]

Most of mine are registered but being that “they are on my boat, they get lost overboard.”

[joe fonebone]

The second amendment was written so as to allow the people the means to overthrow a rogue or runaway government. Therefore, it is not only our right, but our duty to possess whatever weapons the military possesses. This includes machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks ( if you can afford them ) and so on. See tagline

[tumblindice]

An interesting paradox, I think, is that many of the same people who deride the possibility of enforcing USC Title 8—”We can’t deport 20 million people!!”—simultaneously propose stripping 4-5 times as many (Americans) of legally purchased firearms: “assault weapons!”

For them I have 4 words: Don’t tread on me.

[EdReform]

Spot on. Well said!

[Centurion2000]

bump

[arthurus]

I am not entirely optimistic about the coming 2AMD decision. We might have another Kennedy majority.At least three of those Justices would be happy to declare the 2AMD unconstitutional. There is even a sort of precedent for that at the state level- the Colorado Court a few years ago declared a properly accepted state constitution amendment unconstitutional and everybody just said Oh, what a shame!

[arthurus]

The logistics is easier in convincing 5 Justices to effectively declare the 2AMD null and void than it is to get the 2AMD properly repealed.

[wastedyears]

I agree, the only limit to what a person can have should be if they can afford it or not.

[neverdem]

I am not entirely optimistic about the coming 2AMD decision. We might have another Kennedy majority.

We'll see who eats crow within two weeks. I'm not worried about Kennedy if he's consistent with his questions and comments from the oral argument. We might have unexpected allies.

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.”

[B4Ranch]

(Han Solo) “I’ve got a bad feeling about this...” (/Han Solo)

Wait until the next administration puts its boots on and that when the depression will really set in deep.

[arthurus]

It is kind of a rule of thumb that you cannot predict a justice’s decision by his questions. Kennedy would also have a chance here to be the deciding factor in the most momentous decision of the Court since maybe the School prayer decision or even Marbury. Ruling for plain English would be a deal but not “transforming.” I am not predicting such an outcome but I am not at all comfortable right now. If it comes down against 2AMD I expect the prices of guns and ammo to go straight up as the shelves are cleared by buyers.

[yorkie01]

There are too many of us bitter typical white persons who will not give up our guns under any circumstances (Charlton Heston). The 35% figure is bogus since many guns are not registered nor were they ever required to be. Also, how many gang bangers and criminals register their guns?

[steamroller]

Thank you.It is my line in the sand issue-more so than immigration,abortion,economy,or anything else.Disarming a population is the first concrete step in its subjugation.
I believe that with about 80 million gun owners in the US,that if the one-worlders in SCOTUS prevail,there will be trouble they never imagined.If only 10% resisted confiscation-think about it-8 million people deciding not to go down without a fight.The police couldn’t do it.They would need the armed forces.Would they follow those orders?My feeling is that many if not most enlisted personnel would not turn on their own people.We aren’t talking about Iraqi insurgents here,but the friends and families of those soldiers.
Right now,I think it will be a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of individual rights,so hopefully my thoghts on consequences will be moot.
It’s a good thing this is being decided now,in case Obama gets in,because he will pick the worst imaginable people for th Supreme Court.I can foresee Charles Ogletree of Harvard,Obama’s law alma mater for one.He is one of the promoters of the reparations scam.Or Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit,an America-hating scumbag communist married to an ACLU bitch.(Ramona Ripston)Just a few happy thoughts about an Obamanation.