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.”
#3 It’s not that i promote violence by nay means David K, but i have 2 wonderful kids and i am very fortunate to have such a beautiful wife. That when i go out for a night on the town, and some @55hole wants to take the place hostage, i hope their shot is as good as mine
#40
If Mucous gets a nuke I want one too. Maybe if we all arm are selves to the teeth no one will ever die because we will all be afraid the other guy will shoot back.
That’s what we want a world of fear……Oh wait that is the world in which we already live. At least in the U.S. We are a culture of fear. That is why we feel the need to own a gun. I know a lot of people who own guns. I also know a lot of people who don’t. Guess which ones have been shot? That’s right the ones who own guns. BUT it isn’t because they own a gun. It is because of their own fear!
#40 – 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?
Comment by Mucous — 12/8/2006 @ 5:49 am
Do you really think the debates aren’t civil enough? If anything, I think we need to take a page from British Parliment. Our debates are entirely too civil, when they are even debates at all.
To many watered down, ineffective, namby pamby comprimises. Nothing gets done… everything just gets a little tweaked…
I want my Senator to look across the isle and say, “you sir are a raging jack-ass who is in serious need of an ass-kicking, and you shall most certainly recieve one from me and my constituant OhForTheLoveOf if you actually vote yes on that (insert pet issue here)”
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who believe that the “well regulated Militia” and “the people” referred to in the 2nd Amendment are one and the same. Rather, the two entities (militia and citizens) are being contrasted, the latter representing a counterbalance to the former.
I don’t understand why even some lawyers (like the solicitor general in the article) believe that nestled among a Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom from an oppressive government would be an amendment securing the “right” of militiamen acting in the government’s service to be equipped with guns. That would seem to come under the heading of “painfully obvious,” and surely it couldn’t be the point of the amendment.
Silly lawyer. Let’s hope he doesn’t make judge.
It’s more necessary than ever. You have voting machines that can be rigged, and government agencies with the power to snoop everywhere. Wouldn’t you want there to be a counterbalance?
Interesting attack on the 2nd Admendment. I hope it goes to the Supreme Court, we really should end the debate now. It might be moot since we’re about to become part of NAU, North American Union, with a different governing elite. I’ve read where it’ll be Palimentarian system, that should pretty well kill our rights for good. I don’t know if the budget has gotten big enough to force us into the union, but I’m sure it will.
That whole thing about the 2nd amendment is only referring to militias, it doesn’t even exist in Miller, the case that supposedly created that definition. They didn’t say well the guy’s not part of the National Guard and end the case there. They had to keep going, because everyone is part of the militia. Plus there are numerous other court cases where the 2nd amendment right is referred to as an individual right. Most of these aren’t about gun control, and the right is mention in passing as part of others. For example, an enemy combatant case that talks about if he were treated normally, then he could just say he is exercising his 2nd amendment rights.
What I think is interesting,
Is that the Laws for the poor, are straight forward and debatable.
The Laws for corps tend to be WEIRD.
Such as taxes, and that the MORE you make, the more you get to deduct, and hide. Where the laws for the poor, take Taxes out of our checks, corps hold onto it until they can show they DIDNT make a profit, or that they Hid it Very well.
It has been estimated that If the corps paid 1/2 their taxes, NONE of the poor would need to.
Poor=
#46 – It might be moot since we’re about to become part of NAU, North American Union, with a different governing elite. I’ve read where it’ll be Palimentarian system, that should pretty well kill our rights for good.
I read that article in the November issue of Paranoid Kook Magazine. Wild stuff. Did you catch that review of the new anti-black helicopter home defense system? I gotta get me one of those sweet babies for my mountain compound.
This weekend a man in New Mexico called the police to report a burglar. He ended up shooting and killing the intruder. The cops arrived 10 minutes later. Remove his right to self defense? Don’t even think so. Maybe someday we will be able to own Phasers permanenetly set on stun. Until then let me defend my family, my house and my rights.