parent2noles

This will be a monumental event and just in time for the presidential election cycle! I am anxious to hear the various candidates support the personal right or state's right view. They won't be able to duck this issue this cycle.

I can hardly wait.

Here's one article on the case: High court should unholster the 2nd Amendment -- baltimoresun.com

simba

With right leaning majority, I don't expect them to be 'brave'. They will dance around the issue.

parent2noles

It seems to me that dancing would have meant not hearing the case and allowing the circuits to further be in conflict. By hearing the case...who knows?

WashDad

"Brave" would be affirming the individual liberties in the Second Amendment. Those who don't like guns should work to appeal the second. I might even support that. As it stands, though, it's really hard to argue that the Bill of Rights was meant to support the right of militias to be armed. I bet even the 9th District would find that a logical leap that is hard to make.

parent2noles

I too believe that if the Founders wanted to ensure that militias have weapons they'd simply have said "State militias will be properly armed".

Even the most anti-gun person would pause at an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. No sane person would ever give up the right to resist tyranny. As has been said before, the Second Amendment makes the First Amendment possible.

This is why this will be so entertaining - there will inevitably be a clarification and restatement of what our Bill of Rights means to Americans.

I see one conclusion being the minimizing of differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" brought about initially by the abortion fight. Both sides will eventually agree on the personal right to firearms and we'll be better off for it.

simba

My American history is not that good, but in good old days wasn't membership in 'militas' voluntary? So if militas were voluntary, it makes perfect sense that members have their own tools of the trade - killing machines.


There is a long history of militia in the United States, starting during the colonial era, with the colonial militias drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Colonial militia served a vital role in the French and Indian Wars and to a lesser extent the United States Revolutionary War. Militia service shifted from colonial control to state control with the creation of the United States in 1776. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation, in conjunction with the creation of a regular army. With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress.[26] The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia, and "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States", with the States retaining authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress.

Proponents describe a key element in the concept of "militia" was that to be "genuine" it not be a "select militia", composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population. This was an argument presented in the ratification debates.[27]

To ensure that the "militia could not be disarmed", a right of the people to keep and bear arms was recognized in the Second Amendment.[28]

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... "every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock..."

show me those militas and you can have your muskets (were hand guns invented?)

WashDad

Simba, legislation like the 2nd Amendment includes two parts, the reasons for the law (the "whereas's") and the active part of the resolution. The active part of the 2nd reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You can argue the specifics of the "whereas" all you want, but it doesn't change the second part.

Given how the Supreme Court has backed up endless federal involvement in what are manifestly states rights under the guise of "regulating interstate commerce" I wouldn't be surprised at anything the Supremes do, but I doubt they will attempt to find something in the "penumbra" of the 2nd to allow local jurisdictions to infringe the right to own firearms.

The spineless thing is that the Supreme Court has so rarely taken a gun control case. There's nothing quite like the ability to pick and choose what Olympic decrees you would like to hand down.

EDITED: Who needs a King, or even an elected government when you have an unaccountable Supreme Court to decide everything for us all? In a lot of ways, the Supremes have become what the founding fathers worried about.

kluge

...except it doesn't say "whereas", WashDad, and no other part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is "surplus". So why is the 2nd Amendment different? And the "whereas's", when they do exist in legislation, absolutely do affect how the rest of the legislation is interpreted - that's why they're there.


My solution? Simple. Anyone who wants a gun can have one.


As soon as they enlist in the National Guard.

simba

washdad: nice try, but you are picking and choosing.

TheDad

The right to bear arms is not unrestricted, as I know very few of even the most ardent gun nuts who would trust their fellow citizens with tanks, RPG's, shoulder-mounted SAM's, etc. So the question becomes where one draws the line. I have no problem with muzzle-loading rifles, muskets, and flintlock pistols since this is what was widely available at the time the Constitution was framed and I doubt very much that then you would have come up for support for privately-owned cannon.

From the standpoint of degree of lethality, one could make an argument for revolvers and magazine-fed non-automatic rifles with limited sized clips.

P2N, relying upon private ownership of guns as a bulwark against tyranny is laughable...the government's major force these days is electronic. Hey, the Republicans in Congress have said that electronic surveillance is okay as long as it's in the name of state security and enough feckless Democrats have sheeped along to at least temporarily make it law of the land. When the government can monitor your communications, track your finances, and track your physical position, all without your knowledge, your physical liberty is almost an afterthought.

drb

I disagree. These are exactly what we need to keep the black helicopters at bay.

mini

I think drb is exactly correct. The well-organized militia was meant to protect against government depradations. In that regard, handguns are virtually useless (and hence perhaps unprotected - though they are often protected by state law). But tanks, RPGs, suitcase nukes, and private ownership of WMDs are precisely the sort of thing the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect.

parent2noles

A common standard arm today would be an M16 or an AK-47 as the British Brown Bess was perhaps the best standard arm of its day. It is perfectly lawful to own an M16 if you go through the procedures available. The semi-auto equivalent to the M16 is perfectly lawful in most states except CA, MA, MD and other states.

I believe we'll see a change in those laws when the SCOTUS rules in this case.

Federal law already defines tanks, nukes, RPGs and WMDs as "destructive devices" that do not qualify under Amendment #2. No one at the NRA or other firearms-sympathetic organization would ever tolerate suitcase nukes or other WMD as an "arm".

drb

However, .50 cal machine guns would be ok?

simba

Only if you are a law abiding citizen. If not then you can only have .25 cal machine gun.