The right to bear arms

Washington Times ^ | 6/03/02

[kattracks]

The city's ban on private handgun ownership is about to be challenged as unconstitutional

[Drammach]

I'll believe it when I see it. Not until.

[GalvestonBeachcomber]

VISUALIZE NO LIBERALS

--bumpersticker

[Maelstrom]

Ashcroft is NOT about to allow his empty rhetoric to change the reality of gun control in America.

[LS]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was what was known as "states' rights" or "local control." Colonies long had regulations against carrying firearms in church, for example, and the issue that set off the "gunfight at the O.K. Corrall" was that to control the carnage in Tombstone, the Earps required all firearms be checked at the sheriff's office while in town.

The Constitutional issue is not whether people can carry weapons they choose any where, any time, but WHO makes the laws. Emerson essentially upheld this by saying that CONGRESS CANNOT, but that locals (such as Wash. D.C. CAN). Therefore, if you want "concealed carry laws" in Washington, move there and change the law.

[Kermit]

"...Mr. Ashcroft's interpretation of the Second Amendment amounts to a significant reversal of policy for the federal government, which, since 1939, has taken the position that the guarantee applies only to "militias," not ordinary citizens."

This statement presumably refers to Miller and is untrue. Miller said that allowable firearms had to have a reasonable relation to military use. In other words, military firearms are more protected than now military. Miller had to do with a sawed-off shotgun. No evidence was presented that sawed-off shotguns had a military use, because Miller was NOT represented in his case. As it turns out, sawed-off shotguns were used 20 years previously in WWI for trench warfare.

[fporretto]

I must disagree.

When the Constitution intends to deny a power to the federal government, it says: "Congress shall make no law." When it intends to deny a power to all levels of government, it says that no such law "shall be passed," or that a particular right "shall not be infringed," omitting any mention of who might pass the law or do the infringing.

Under this literal reading of the document, the state of Massachusetts had an established church until 1830, and it was widely regarded as within its proper sphere to have one. By contrast, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures, phrased so as not to refer to any particular level of government, was held to apply to the states as early as 1797.

Granted that it will be a while before municipalities and states accept this approach, or before Washington moves to force it upon them.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[toddst]

. . . if you want "concealed carry laws" in Washington, move there and change the law.

First, I wouldn't live in D.C. for any reason. Beyond that, Washington is a unique city, having no state constitution within which it must operate.

D.C. residents need to decide what's in their best interest IMHO.

[William Terrell]

You're right for a state, but DC would come under Article 1, section 8, clause 17.

[LS]

I agree with your understanding of the law, but not with your application or example. A better example is the 14th Amendment, which clearly says that "No person may be denied" or words to that effect. When it says "Congress shall make no law," the intention, based on the "reserved" powers, was that the people and the states EXPLICITLY reserved the right to make those laws.

[FreeTally]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Congress is not mentioned in my 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ingringed" means no level of government can infringe upon the people's right. Not the feds, not the States, not counties and not cities. No one.

[SevenDaysInMay]

The 14th's equal protection extends Constitutional rights over the "several states" so states are required to abide by the obvious Law of the Land, i.e. 2nd Article of our Bill of Rights.

[SauronOfMordor]

DC residents are unlikely to enjoy 2nd Amendment rights anytime soon, because Congress does not like to rub elbows with armed citizens.

You might think that the Congress-critters would like to see the reduced crime that concealed carry would achieve. If you thought that, you would be wrong. STREET CRIME DOES NOT AFFECT THE WASHINGTON POWER ELITE. When was the last time you heard of an official being mugged in DC? Congress-critters and senior Administration officials have armed bodyguards. No street-thug in DC in his right mind is going to hassle a white middle-class-looking person in the capital area, because he knows what kind of wrath he's going to bring down if his target turns out to be somebody with power, or a plainclothes federal law-enforcement agent

The elite in Washington, NYC, and LA are not afraid of street crime, and don't care much about street thugs having guns. What they ARE afraid of is another Mark David Chapman (assassin of John Lennon) or John Hinkley (the guy who shot Reagan) -- quiet, middle-class white guys who might suddenly snap and take an extreme dislike to them. Hinckley and Chapman demonstrated that you can be a celebrity with all the bodyguards you want, and it won't make a damn bit of difference if someone is obsessed with taking you out and doesn't care about what happens to himself afterwards

[Mulder]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Wrong. The second amendment states that "The Right of the People shall not be infringed....". It applies just as the provisions of the 4th, 5th, and other amendmends do. In otherwords, throughout the entire United States.

[RS]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Congress is not mentioned in my 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ingringed" means no level of government can infringe upon the people's right. Not the feds, not the States, not counties and not cities. No one.

You are absolutely correct, by any reasonable, intelligent reading of the Constitution. But when did that ever matter ?

[VRWCmember]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

One could reasonably argue that the First Amendment does not DENY cities or states the authority to establish an official religion -- only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. However, that sort of recognition of states' rights went out of style a long time ago.

[LS]

That certainly was never the intention of either the cities or the colonies, let alone the Founders, who NEVER intended, for example, that imbeciles/mental deficients would be allowed guns; or, in the South, slaves. I agree, though, with your general interpretation that the PREVAILING assumption is that the people should be armed. But as I say, there was abundant colonial case law that already had established towns' rights to regulate arms of all sorts within their borders.

[Shooter 2.5]

The First Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law....". The Second Amendment has no such wording to it and since the Bill of Rights is the highest law of the land it is superior to what any municipality can claim. The Bill of Rights does not allow Rights. It explains inalienable rights. Rights that can not be given or taken away.