Associated Press – December 7, 2006:
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” applies to all people or only to “a well regulated militia.”
“We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms,” said Todd Kim, the District’s solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
“Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the way you do,” Judge Laurence Silberman said. “It doesn’t appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century.”
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment’s language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
“That’s quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary,” Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. “If we decide that it’s no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?“
Just an addition, regardless of whether the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution applies to individuals or militias, it should be noted that state constitutions are generally not as ambigoius. For example, the Constitution for Michigan unambiguously states, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
Attorneys from DC should be shot.
Now that was just a joke but seriously, there is still a lot of country out here that owning a weapon is a prudent thing to do. Not all of us live in the concrete jungle, and when a mountain lion starts hanging around my house, I need to scare it off. If its a politician, of course, Its shoot to kill. Another joke.
If the government takes that right away from us, I think that will be the last act before they instigate some fake terrorist bullshit and declare martial law. Then we are all up s**t creek.
12. Bob is exactly right. The only people who will be giving up guns are the legal ones (registered) owners who arent the ones you need to worry about. You better believe I will be seeking weapons on the black market if this ever happens, and you will too if you have any brains. This is NOT a civilized world, no mater what bleeding hearts think.
#15
Handguns may be used to end human life too often than they should be, it is not there only purpose. Like other guns they can be used for protection and defence. I live in alaska and go hunting several times a year, i hunt with my rifle but i always carry a pistol in a hostler on my belt while doing so. Hand guns can be loaded and aimed much quicker than rifles or shotguns for the most part. If I am camping out and I upset an animal in anyway, given that im close to the animal, i might not have time to load my rifle and take the shot if that becomes necessary.
**For all practical purposes, in urban areas handguns are about only good for ending human lives, that could meen defending yourself from someone breaking in, or committing crimes.
+1 for #20….
Regards,
Stu (NRA member and 2A supporter).
The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED IT IS PLAIN ENGLISH READ IT, FOLLOW IT. DON’T EVER TRY TO INTERPRET IT, IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT IT IS A STATEMENT AND IT IS AS VALID TOADY AS IT WAS 200+ YEARS A GO
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION HAS BROUGHT US NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (IE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, ROE V WADE, JUDICIARY POWERS ECT ) just read it ! It is plain simple English any one can understand and it was so well written it still works today and will work forever into the future
Can I add another senerio for NEEDING a gun??
To take back this country from those who have taken away.
If the Gov is the only one to bare arms, we might as well be back in the 1400′s. Relaying on our KING to protect us. And Even our Gov has Stated, that it cant protect us.
When they can only check 1/10th of incoming cargo for radioactives, weapons, or even Persons…
when the Canadian border is basically OPEN to anyone that wants to take a short Hike.
when a Farting lady is enough to ground an airplane.
When our own Gov, has contracts that were NOT bid for, or havent been bid is years..
Our Gov. used to do the work ITSELF, and now has contracts that have gone up in Cost, and we dont question it.
Haliburton….
When we PAY our taxes and NOTHINg is being done with the money, except to pay Big corps to SIT on their butts and do little or nothing.
Do you think its about time we amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal? If you go messing with the constitution, there are always consequences good along with the bad.
Mark I agree with your post. There are times when guns are needed. I have no problem with shotguns and rifles, etc. which would serve perfectly well in your sort of situation. What I have a problem with is the other types of guns.
I live in a suburb of New York (this is not out midwest somewhere I guess is my point) and our local gun store sells guns specifically for killing people as fast as possible. I’m not just talking handguns. The local gun store sells SUBMACHINEGUNS. Thats right, I walked in there and saw guns on display I’d only previously seen in Tom Clancy games. They had all sorts of fully automatic weapons.
Do you mind me asking… what the hell are these for?? You’re not telling me you’re going gunting with an AK-47. Why can these just be bought in stores. My position is ban all guns except ones that can be used for hunting and defense, like rifles and shotguns.
Gun control has for the most part been on the outs as of late. Its not like the 80s and 90s where gun control was popular. Now most pols steer clear of oppressive gun control that was conceived in the last decades. Gun control doesn’t work, as criminals will always get guns as easily as they get drugs. Gun control only serves to disarm the populous make them dependent on the Gov for protection.
These fuzzy thinking clods have the strictest gun control laws and the highest murder rate in the country — go figure.
#27…. they’re fun. Shooting ranges, recreation, sport. Is that a damn problem?
I’m guessing you skimmed the rest of the comments at best so a refresher, they keep the government in check. The only thing that’s keeping them as honest as they are is good old fashioned fear.
And DALE, wow… what the hell use would a nuke be against our government? That’s like imploding your house to kill a cockroach. We still kinda have to live here even after a fight. Use some damned common sense please. This country was born of revolt, doesn’t it make a little sense that it stay a part of the country? We’re just lucky that so far most of our changes to the government have remained non-violent. But we might not always be that fortunate, and I for one would like to know that IF the time comes to fight I can be equipped.
I’m really not too worried about Bush instituting martial law, or anything serious for that matter. I’m worried about some asshole getting elected who will abuse the powers Bush created. Don’t think a psycopath couldn’t get elected, that crazy magical bastard hitler managed just fine. It’s still very possible for someone just as insane and charismatic to come around.
Call me paranoid, but I’m gonna say it’s not an if but a where and when. My goal is to make that as far from here and now as possible.
Wow! because of the second amendment, if we all banded together, in three years time we could make the US look a lot like Iraq!!!
Color me unimpressed…
Of course, everyone wants to keep guns for hunting… how noble! But let’s face it. The guns that people really need are for self defense; hence the need for handguns; they’re small and can be used in close proximity. For those who don’t get the chance to shoot as much as they want, an AK-47 should provide a good starter kit against intruders; not to mention the fact that it doesn’t require as much maintenance as other models. So yeah, #27, there’s a need for those too. The 2A provides for putting defense into the hands of the individual; not just hobbies and sports.
Had a look at the second amendment. I don’t see the word FIRE anywhere.
32,
you want a defence weapon…
Try a 410 Double barrel, Darringer…Dont Aim…Point into a room and FIRE, dont even need to look.. Bird shot, EXTRA WIDE pattern.
Make sure you know where you family is.
Its not that dangerous beyond 20-30 feet. It should wound Everything in a room.
…just outlaw bullets.
@ acree: “I live in a suburb of New York … and our local gun store sells guns specifically for killing people as fast as possible. I’m not just talking handguns. The local gun store sells SUBMACHINEGUNS… I walked in there and saw guns on display I’d only previously seen in Tom Clancy games… Do you mind me asking… what the hell are these for?? You’re not telling me you’re going gunting with an AK-47. Why can these just be bought in stores. My position is ban all guns except ones that can be used for hunting and defense, like rifles and shotguns.”
While I sympathize somewhat with the sentiment, I’d only point out that the 2nd Amendment was not instituted for the pleasure and convenience of hunters, nor was it intended to be some sort of substitute for personal protection from criminals until police forces were invented. No, the 2nd Amendment was designed expressly for citizens to protect themselves from government military force. Period.
As to what sort of weapons the founders would have thought necessary for that task, the answer in their day would have been ‘Whatever it takes for an individual to do the job’. Personal weapons then ran the gammut from swords & knives to pistols and rifled muskets, to fuse lit cannons. But as quaint as these weapons seem to us now, they still represented the most advanced technology yet devised by man for killing, that a single man could actually handle with minimum training. It was a fait accompli that regular citizens were to be allowed to have such weapons b/c, well, the government itself had ready access to them. To deny them to citizens was to deny them a fair fight (god forbid).
So how to extrapolate that to the present? What constitutes ‘effective protection’ from a government gone bad today? Well, even if you subtract nukes, the destructive power of modern state armies is off-the-charts worse than anything the Founding Fathers could have imagined. Yet the need for a free citizenry to protect itself from said state, in the worse case scenario, is exactly the same. So, logically, it follows that citizens should have access to personal weapons that would allow them roughly the same technological advantages as the state enjoys. Otherwise, again, it’s not a fair fight and the state isn’t adequately deterred from encroaching on it’s citizen’s rights – two goals the Founders wanted met. It’s scary to think what the implications of that are for some people today, but if we’re going to be intellectually honest about what the Founders intended, that’s it.
One final thought – some would point to the Iraq War as a counter to this argument; that they seem to be very successfully tying our modern military into knots with comparitively primitive weapons. I would only point out a few things: A] That the primary rifled weapons the Iraqis are using are exactly the type that are first offered up for banning in this country (AK-47s and assualt weapons in general). B] That in fact they have even more advanced & powerful weapons at their disposal, which are NOT available to the average American. Consider; their IEDs are made out of 155mm artillery shells, their RPGs fire high powered grenades, and now they are introducing shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missles. C] That even these means available to the average Iraqi (and not available here) are still only powerful enough to keep a restrained state miilitary power off-balance. The Iraqis are not winning their country back, nor are they protecting their society – both are being slowly destroyed – and this is not what the Founders wanted here. The 2nd Amendment was a hoped for way of allowing the citizens to do what the founders themselves did in the run-up to the Revolution; arm, organize, and fight in a way that would drive enemies from the field and induce a surrender. Only in this way could the society survive.
Now, there are arguments made that guerilla war tactics make that objective invalid anymore. However, guerilla tactics existed back then too – in fact, Washington expressly rejected using them becuase he knew that what the Iraqis are experiencing today would be the result (i.e. total social distentigration that would make any rebuilding a generational project). And if you think an Iraqi insurgency equipped with M1 tanks and attack copters would be settling for the interminable hit & run war they’re forced to conduct now, you’re delusional. They are already doing whatever they’re weapons tech allows in driving the US from Iraq once and for all – its just that guerilla war IS the best their current weapons allow.
So the militia, as it was defined in the Constitution, was always intended to be only marginally less-well equipped than the army. And the reason for that was to make the citizenry potentially powerful enough to both deter state military action against them, and to allow the possibility for legitimate and expedient success by citizens (the latter to keep the society your fighting for from being totally destroyed in the process).
I wish we didn’t have to concern ourselves with such things. I’d like nothing more than to live in a whole world that could count on states using their police and military powers responsibly at all times. Unfortunately we don’t live in that world, and the Founding Fathers of the US knew that better than anybody. We would be stupid to ignore their wisdom, as well as our own reality.
#20,
I bought my semi-auto AK-47 clone purely to annoy people like you.
It stays locked up most of the time. My favorite rifles for shooting are a Marlin lever-action (think old-west) and a WWII era bolt-action Enfield.
#7 I totally agree.
From a logical standpoint, Abortion and Gun Control are the same thing. One side wants to protect individual freedom, the other side wants to stop unnecessary deaths. And yet it amazes me that conservatives take the personal freedom argument to heart when it comes to guns, but want the nanny state intervention in regards to abortion rights (which any one with a brain realizes should be covered under the 9th ammendment). Liberals are just as hypocritical the other way around.
Libertarians (who believe guns and abortions are protected freedoms) and moderates (like me who want to see both guns and abortions be “safe legal and rare”) are the only ones who see both issues logically.
Hey, you guys missed the crux of the story. This is Washington DC that we are talking about. It’s where all the politicians are. Sheesh, do I need to spell it out for you? I’m all for keeping guns away from our politicians and all foreign dignitaries who happen to visit. I vote yes!
Seriously, because of the special status afforded to the Nation’s Capitol, I could be persuaded into the idea of that one particular place in the Nation being designated a gun free zone. I think that it may be a good thing.
Somewhere down the road, when it comes time to decide how the city of Jerusalem is to be administered, it would be nice to have a leg to stand on, in trying to persuade the warring religious parties involved, to respect the sanctity of that one spot, and declare it a gun free zone also. I know, my idea is awfully ripe with namby-pamby idealism. I realize also that any such declaration would be mostly only symbolic, yet it does seem to me that where we pray, and where we conduct our governance, are two places where weapons really shouldn’t be.
I’ve read the statistics, it is disgusting and shameful how many innocent lives are lost every hour of every day, right here in the United States due to guns, mostly hand guns. It is a huge price that we as a society have to pay because of this. As sad as it is, it is worth it. Our Rights don’t come without costs. If we don’t cherish, and protect our rights, we will lose them. There is not an army on the face of the Earth that could win a war against 300 million armed citizen insurgents, and every sane government in the world knows this, or at least should.
The right for every citizen to keep and bare arms, is the single most important right afforded to us in the Constitution. It is the only guaranteed leverage we as citizens have to be able to make sure we get to keep the rest of the rights we have been promised.
That said, let us not forget that the once mighty Soviet empire was brought down with nary a single shot fired in protest. If that’s not a good example, then think about how many constitutional breaches have occurred just in the last couple years, perpetuated by our current government, and yet few of us have even raised our voices. I fear that if we were to ever loose our rights, we’ll probably cheer our master for taking them away.
#9 & #7 excellent points. I can’t believe someone else bought up one of my pet peeves: abortion and gun control are the same issue – personal freedom.
IF I could afford it, I would have not only guns, but my own tanks, missiles and nukes.
I think all members of Congress should be required to wear a loaded gun at all times, especially in chambers, during session. Ya think the debates would get a little more civil?