So the Court acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms is a right.

Now if only the courts, the NRA, the Congress, the federal and state governments (And their gestapos) can figure out what "shall not be infringed" means!

This is good news and all, but I am not going to give up my firearms no matter what the courts say. FMCDH

bump

This is good news and all, but I am not going to give up my firearms no matter what the courts say. FMCDH

2 posted on 10/19/01 9:45 AM Pacific by cactmh

Nor will I!!!

Ditto.

Actually, it depends on the proper contextual exegesis of the word "regulated". Who is it that "regulates" the milita? Where does the Constitution give the State to regulate the militia? When did we the people give this over (legally) to the State? It is interesting to note at this point that all those fringe groups calling themselves "Militia" (ie: Michigan Militia, Montana Freemen Militia, etc.) are never changed with establishing an illicit militia. Next, "Why is this [a well regulated militia] necessary for a free State?" Finally, "Who then are the people?"

It is my contention that "We the people, living in freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution, desire to regulate our militia well by personally bearing [fire]arms in an effort not only to serve in a patriotic capacity but to defend our lives and property against a militia bent on tyranny, terror or coup (a militia not well regulated)."

"For this right, we also claim security in our homes against direct (Third Amendment) and surreptitous (4th Amendment) abuse of our liberties."

There is some real force in in the phrase "well regulated".

Well regulated meant well trained & well prepared.

The appeals court wrote that the Second Amendment preserves Americans' "right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training."

"Legally, it's a huge victory in the quest to prove that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right," said Dr. Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, who may appeal to U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes! Great post, T! Thanks.

Added to bang_list. (Click HERE to show most gun-related articles recently posted on FreeRepublic.com.)

The ruling is correct for the right to bear arms!

I'm not sure about the domestic case though.

An individual should have a right to defend oneself even in light of a restraining order!

The restraining order laws need to be very closely looked at to see how they are written.

Obviously, it serves the best interests of the potential to harm the spouse.

Does this mean a person should be denied the right of self defense, I think not.

There are some freak women out there who could easily swear a restraining order out against an old boy friend with very little credible evidence of a real threat!

I'm no expert on this, and was brought up never to hit a woman so, I'm not sure about how the restraining orders read.

Wonder why the right to bear arms outside the militia became an issue here, previously it was no issue it was unquestioned!

Maybe this is just a secondary clarification for support and understanding of the reality our founders knew, in light of the recent terrorist threat.

It appears necessary, in light of the real domestic threat, that the militia can and does serve as useful deterent in modern times.

For most of us FReapers we already knew that.

Maybe this is just concrete reinforcement for the gun grab, take us over from the inside communists, a message saying take your hands off our guns!

BUMP........B U M P

Now, what happens if you ALREADY own a firearm and are slapped with a restraining order?
Do they come and take it away?

"NRA Lauds Court Ruling"..........now the nra knows what to give away.

What do you know? The NRA guncrats took enough time of from lobbying for Congressman Young's (R-AK) CARA FedGov land-grab bill to read the papers about this court decision.

They even say they like the decision. (But I wonder.)

Le bump!

And which gun groups do you work for?

Agreed. This is my personal opinion (feel free to disagree if you wish). What I think the "well-regulated" part involves is power to punish misuse of the right, and to set a limited set of "rules of the road" for bearing them.

We all agree that a law-abiding citizen should have the right to own whatever firearm they wish (pretty much anything that can be consider small arms is covered under the Second Amendment, IMHO). Violent felons, the mentally incompetent, and some other classes do not have this right.

A means of keeping those who have lost that right from getting firearms is permissible (say, the instant-check), but if there is misuse (using it for registration), then it ought to be scrapped. Similarly, 10-20-Life is allowable as it applies to misuse.

Similarly, states can go up to a "shall-issue" CCW system. But there cannot be a requirement to prove a need or discretion that can be used arbitrarily.

But 95% or so of the laws governing firearms are, IMHO, far beyond the pale. The government's limited to measures that keep them out of the hands of felons and th ementally incompetent, have a way to temporarily keep them out of the hands of someone when there is probably cause he could harm others (as is undisputed in the Emerson case), punish offenders severly (10-20-Life), and assure that those who decide to carry have a modicum of competency (shall-issue system). All under heightened scrutiny, with serious penalties for misuse.

That's what we can get. Then, we need to educate future generations so that the anti-freedom crowd cannot take the ground they will lose again - or even try repeal of the Second Amendment (which they will try if they lose this case in the Supreme Court).

BUMP

There is some real force in in the phrase "well regulated".

Standing troops in colonial days were called "regulars." Militias were generally seen as "non-regulars." The difference between regulars and non-regulars was generally in the area of provisioning and training.

Well-regulated troops were not those who had "good rules to live by." They were those who were well-provisioned....especially with weapons.

A well-regulated militia.....the right of the people. Basically, this says that the people have the right to bear arms because the ultimate fallback position for freedom is citizens standing up for their own rights and having the firepower to do so.

This is great news, I do expect however, a full side attack from individual States and individual communities on gun rights and ammo. This snake has been stomped good, but it's head has not be cut off. Still work to do Sis.