Posted on 03/18/2007 8:15:54 AM PDT by Neo-Luddite
For nearly 70 years, the 2nd Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions--missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. The right to keep and bear arms, though treasured by many Americans, was a complete stranger to the Supreme Court. But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun-control law as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
The District of Columbia statute in question is one of the most stringent in the country. It bans the ownership of handguns except those registered before 1976, and it requires rifles or shotguns to be not only registered but kept unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock. Such tight restrictions, the appeals court said, can't be reconciled with the Bill of Rights.
The decision does not prove that the 2nd Amendment is alive and well. But it does mean that, finally, we are likely to get an answer from the Supreme Court on a question that has generated endless debate: Is the 2nd Amendment a meaningless anachronism, or a live guarantee? The court will be confronting the issue at a time when legal scholarship is increasingly inclined to say there is indeed a right to keep and bear arms.
The full text of the provision is: "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." In its last significant 2nd Amendment case, in 1939, the court didn't exactly say there was no individual right. Instead, it said the firearm at issue, a sawed-off shotgun, would not be of use to someone serving in a militia. The question of an individual right was left unresolved.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Funny, ain't it, how this decision has received almost no attention in the MSM? Think maybe the liberals think if they ignore it, it'll go away?
Yes..the Supremes erred IN FACT when they said a sawed-off shotgun was not a useful mitlita weapon - they were too ignorant to know how many had been used in WWI. But, part of the problem was that only the Fed.Gov was there...neither the defendant NOR his lawyers were there to present ANY defense. The case was moot...he was dead.
There are government agencies that have been ignoring the Constitution for years. Heck, even the existence of some if them violates the Constitution. If the SCOTUS rules the wrong way on this, it just might be time to show them what the Second Amendment is for. The Constitution, as amended, MUST be reestablished as the law of the land if we're to survive.
"And trying to determine what the framers meant is hard because they barely discussed the right and what it might entail."
B.S. they had a lot to say about the second amendment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1802411/posts
Actually that would be the Tenth Amendment.
A reversal of the latest DC 2A ruling will, of course, be trumpeted from the mountaintops.
umgud, great photo.... i can see more than one message:-()
In order to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, it helps to look at the various manifestations of it before it was ratified.....
New Hampshire Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
New York Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
North Carolina Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - 17. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Pennsylvania Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - 7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
Virginia Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
James Madison's Proposed Amendments offered to Congress - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights - "That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."
Select Committee's Proposed Amendments as reported to Congress - "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Proposed Amedments Passed by the House of Representatives - ARTICLE THE FIFTH.A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Proposed Amendments Passed by the Senate - ARTICLE THE FOURTH.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.
Proposed Amendments sent by Congress for Ratification by the States - Article the fourth . . . 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.
Observation: At the time of the writing of The Bill of Rights the citizens had more fire power than the military. Today the citizens are at a disadvantage.
Sawed-off shotguns were also used in WWII. The Marines used them to stop Japanese "Banzai" attacks on some of the South Pacific islands.
Exactly right, if the decision were reversed, we will never hear the end of it and God help us from the avalanche of gun-banning that would ensue.
Well the 2 nd Amendment will come in a close second to the Tenth.
"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."
The States have become slaves to the Federal Purse. Every lower branch of government from the States down to school boards bow and scrape and drop their drawers to get the Federal dollar. The term “a Free State” has become a satirical joke.
The Right to bear arms still carries some weight because politicians fear gun owners at the ballot box but as for the any Amendments dealing with states rights your are correct it is an archaic notion.
"Funny, ain't it, how this decision has received almost no attention in the MSM? Think maybe the liberals think if they ignore it, it'll go away?"
Sometimes I think that on a story like this, that they are waiting for a coherent, response to be developed by their side of the issue. Once they have a workable dialogue to counter what would have been the raw, clear cut message of the original news, then they will do some stories on this.
"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
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.