Journal Timex's Journal: Questioning the Second Amendment 16
Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 8:49 PMWASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second 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 Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second 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 Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.
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?"
___
The case is: Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041.
I believe that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. With this right comes a responsibility to learn how to safely keep and use any firearms one owns.
Feel free to discuss this... I'll watch.
Gun sniffing dogs. (Score:2)
Really, if every non-military or police firearm was removed from the US how long would it take before criminals got their hands on firearms again?
If they ban firearms to citizens I'll be very upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries manage to do better without having everyone armed to the teeth.
The basic premise of the 2nd Amendment have been proven wrong. You don't need a "well-armed militia" to keep government in check or to overthrow an existing government - just look at South Africa. Or the 9/11 attacks - 19 guys with box cutters succeeded in replacing the US government with an unconstitutional dictatorship that does what it wants, never mind what "that damn piece of paper says."
If the law truly applies to indi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which part?
After all, its all true ...
The president feels he can ignore the Constitution, thanks to 19 guys with box cutters ... that's one hell of a "change of government" ... and a militia wouldn't have prevented it, because most people don't even care, as long as they're "getting theirs" ... now I'll agree THAT is a ridiculous situation ...
US law prohibits most citizens from being part of the militia ... it also discriminates against women ...
Other countries have overthown their governments witho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
After all, its all true ...
Well, no, it's not. Most of it is wrong. In fact, the Constitution absolutely does grant an individual right to keep and bear arms, to all citizens. There's no serious scholar who thinks otherwise. It's simply not possible to read the words of Madison (who wrote it) and the Founders and the people who passed it, and to read the first century of law and cases about it, and think otherwise.
Heck, it's not even possible to read the actual words and think otherwise: the actual sentence construction has a de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I subscribe to the belief that the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (aka "The Bill of Rights") applies to the individual, which means that I, as a law-abiding American citizen, have every
Re: (Score:2)
tomhudson seems to have an unnatural knack for legal matters. Though tomhudson is not a lawyer, the post is not without merit.
In legal matters, yes, it is without merit.
Personally, I subscribe to the belief that the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (aka "The Bill of Rights") applies to the individual, which means that I, as a law-abiding American citizen, have every right to own firearms.
There is no rational legal argument that states otherwise. It is not possible to read it in any other way, whether you are looking just at the text of the amendment in context with the rest of the Bill of Rights, or whether you look at the context and history surrounding the amendment's passage.
I also believe that the Federal government is taking way too many liberties in lawmaking, because the Constitution makes it quite clear in the Tenth Amendment that any powers not granted to the US through the Constitution are retained by the individual states and/or the people themselves. As I understand it, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 18 does not give the federal government liberty to ignore this fact.
Correct. Indeed, since the Amendment X came later, it would have modified Section 8 even if Section 8 DID give such authority. But it never did. Madison thought Amend
Re: (Score:1)
You might be upset, but I'll be a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't explicitly saaaay that I wouldn't be...
Re: (Score:2)
TReally, if every non-military or police firearm was removed from the US how long would it take before criminals got their hands on firearms again?
If they ban firearms to citizens I'll be very upset.
Depends on where you are. Florida and Texas, you could have one in a day. If they ban firearms to citizens, I'll be a criminal. I've had a gun save my life or prevent me from being robbed too many times to rely on the police to protect me.
That reminds me of a Sir Mix a Lot song from the early 90s called No Holds Barred [lyricshead.com].
Hypothetical situation
Gun control starts sweepin the nation
Now you got a bunch of unarmed innocent victims
Gettin F**KED by the system
Sittin at home with a butter knife, huh
Any fool could rape your wife
So what's up when the criminals can't be stopped?
The only one with guns are the COPS
But it's hard for a brother to trust police
Huh, so the shit don't cease
So I go downtown to buy a hot gun
I hated criminals, and now I'm one
Because I bought a gat to protect my house
The cops wanna bust me out?
So it's illegal to protect yourself?
Hell, you either get killed, or you in jail
So when you vote
You better think about what I just wrote
And F**K writin a note to yo' Congressman!
You got the fool hired
Now help get the fool fired
A scary scenario
And I put it in your stereo
So when a fool tries to run up on my car
R.I.P., no holds barred
No holds barred
No holds barred
'They take aim, at the law abiding citizen, instead of the criminal'
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fake controversy (Score:1)