Constitutional Opinions
Guns Before the Court
The Supreme Court hears argument today in a landmark Second Amendment case.
Today the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that is likely to result in a landmark decision. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court will consider whether the individual right to bear arms it recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller can be enforced against State and local governments. In doing so, it may address more broadly the way in which individual rights are enforced against the States and the extent to which State and local governments can regulate or restrict those rights.
The case involves a challenge to a City of Chicago ordinance essentially prohibiting the possession of handguns. In Heller, the Supreme Court held that a similar handgun ban enforced by the District of Columbia violated the Second Amendment. However, the Court did not address whether the Second Amendment prohibited States and local governments from enacting similar restrictions. The Court considered only whether the federal government, through its supervision of the District, could be prohibited from taking such action.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Heller is a resounding affirmation of the fundamental right to bear arms. The Court analyzed the plain language and history of the Second Amendment at length, and concluded that it plainly guaranteed an individual right to own and possess firearms. However, the Court’s decision in Heller left several questions unanswered, including the extent to which that right to bear arms could be regulated and whether it could be enforced against State and local governments.
While the Heller decision strongly supported an individual right to bear arms, the Court was deeply divided, issuing a 5-4 decision split largely on ideological lines. Accordingly, the outcome in McDonald is far from clear.
Adding to the drama is an emerging controversy among gun right proponents. The sole issue in McDonald is whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment so that it applies to the States and local governments. That question should have a straightforward answer based on decades of Supreme Court precedent. The Court has incorporated numerous provisions of the Bill of Rights through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Nonetheless, the petitioners in McDonald seek to advance a somewhat novel theory that is supported by recent academic commentary — that the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are derived from the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the amendment, and not the Due Process Clause. This approach is supported not only by those on the right who believe that the Privileges or Immunities Clause will provide stronger protection for the individual right to bear arms, but also some on the left, who believe that incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause will result in greater protection for individual rights more generally. However, adopting this approach would require the Court to overrule existing precedent, specifically its decision in the Slaughter-House Cases — a decision issued over one hundred years ago that severely restricted the scope of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
Petitioners’ approach has generated significant controversy. The National Rifle Association, which submitted a brief in the case, also took the unusual step of seeking to participate in oral argument. In doing so, it seeks to advance the more traditional view of incorporation, focusing on the Due Process Clause and the Court’s precedent incorporating similar Bill of Rights provisions.
At the end of the day, McDonald is likely to be a repeat of the Heller decision, incorporating the Second Amendment in a narrow 5-4 decision. However, the decision presents the thorny question of how far lawyers should go in advocating particular ideological views that may detrimental to their clients. The most clean-cut and powerful argument for incorporation of the Second Amendment is undoubtedly based on the decades of Supreme Court precedent incorporating various Bill of Rights protections under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, application of the Privileges or Immunities Clause might result in a broader and more unrestricted right to bear arms. This is the tension at the heart of the McDonald case. Those supporting broad Second Amendment rights can only hope that this tension does not undermine their position seeking enforcement of the Second Amendment against the States and local governments.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (163) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Douglas Smith
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/02/guns-before-the-court
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 3.2.10 @ 6:38AM
Every time this issue is brought before any court, County, State and Federal, I have to keep asking the question, what part of "shall not be infringed" they do not understand.
Of course the gun grabbers will run screaming on high of all the bad instances hitting the news every time a crazy shoots up a school, resturant, event of some sort but, as always failes, to reach the conclusion that there are 80+ million fire arms owners in this country who abide by the common laws of this land and the true intention of these resposible owners is for the protection of the few would be grabbers. Shameful these issues keep wasting our S/C time and resources when we should be asking and demanding the resignation of one closet muslim known as barry the liar.
Copyleft| 3.2.10 @ 8:27AM
And every time someone trots out that same tired old argument, I have to keep asking the question "What part of 'well regulated' do YOU not understand?"
By the way... the "closet Muslim" stuff doesn't exactly help your credibility if you're trying to establish that gun-fondlers AREN'T raving crackpots.
bob alou| 3.2.10 @ 9:05AM
As anyone who has done the slightest actual historical research on this issue knows, the term "well regulated" as used in the SA referred to individuals showing up with firearms with which they were familar, in working order, and were capable of operating in an appropriate manner. The idea that the federal government would have control of an entity -the militia- that was specifically created to obviate the power of that institution should it become injurious of the rights recognized as protecting, preserving and, if need be, restoring, a government "of and by the people" is logically nonsensical.
Doorgunner| 3.2.10 @ 10:14AM
Copyleft, could you, within the parameters of late 18th century usage, define the words "militia" and "army"? Once you've done that, we can discuss "'well regulated'" (sic) by whom.
Oh, and ask me about my retirement plan; it involves an unbelievable amount of stockpiled ammunition and Liberals.
fondle... fondle... fondle...
Copyleft| 3.2.10 @ 9:03PM
Doorgunner,
No I cannot, I have asked my superiors for guidance. Daily KOS will soon contact me with the proper retort.
victor| 3.3.10 @ 2:18PM
Copy Reader:
"Daily KOS will soon contact me with the proper retort."
Proving once again that liberals cannot think their way out of a paper bag.
Ryan| 3.2.10 @ 10:29AM
What does "well-regulated" mean?
Ray Spitz| 3.3.10 @ 9:28AM
In usage of the time, "well regulated" means "well equipped" or "well prepared."
Ryan| 3.3.10 @ 1:04PM
I know that and you know that, but Copyleft got SLAMMED. I'll probably post it several times whenever I see him...
Da Rue Stir | 3.6.10 @ 2:13PM
Regulate: adhearance to the order of law
Albert Frevele| 3.2.10 @ 11:12AM
Mr. Copyleft, "well regulated" means well trained and well prepared, as in "regular" troops as opposed to conscripts. If you read Madison in "The Federalist" wou will see "well regulated" used interchageably with trained, prepared, ready to serve. Read the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. This is not a conditional statement. Exercise of the right in the second part is not conditioned upon anything written in the first part. The first part is a REASON for the second part (the actual right). One could also write, "Because a well trained militia is necessary for the security of a free State..." The simple fact is that without a freely armed citizenry, there can be no militia. The militia is by definition, armed citizens freely coming together for mutual self defense. Draftees are conscripts, not militia. Professional soldiers hired and paid by the government are not militia. The National Guard are not militia. When the militia is called, citizens who have taken upon themselves to be armed and well trained in the use of arms, freely show up and band together in defense of their community and their "Free and Independent State." The 2nd Amendment gurantees that the People's right to do this shall not be infringed upon by government. This is simple, easy to understand, and requires no advanced degrees or education. Just read the Constitution and "The Federalist," and many other writings of the Founders. Their meaning is clear, without the esoterica of modern legal "scholarship."
Sam| 3.2.10 @ 12:37PM
Albert, I really like your definition of a militia. As many of you know, I am a moderate who often disagrees with you here. But I am a fervent supporter of the right to bear arms. My question just as a discussion topic is this: How far does our freedom to bear arms extend? Where do we draw the line? Are RPGs and bazookas acceptable arms that just anyone can own?
Again, I am a strong supporter of gun rights. I'm just a little hesitant to include the heavier weapons.
ncatty| 3.2.10 @ 12:47PM
Just as the First Amendment does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (unless it IS on fire), the right to bear arms also is not absolute. How far can it be regulated? That is a case by case decision. It seems to me that the degree of constitutional regulation expands as the power/size of the particular weapon increases.
Sam| 3.2.10 @ 1:15PM
" The degree of regulation expands as the power/size of the weapon expands."
That makes sense, ncatty. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
-Sam
Albert Frevele| 3.2.10 @ 1:38PM
One thing to remember about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Someone who does this is prosecuted for a malicious act AFTER he does it. Gun control is applied BEFORE an offense is committed. If we apply the same pre-emptive restriction to free speech as we do to guns, then the movie patron would have to be gagged before entering the movie theater. Prosecute the OFFENDER! Don't prevent the innocent from defending themselves. Gun control is not and never has been about crime control. It is about people control by politicians. Nothing more. The same people who want gun control also release convicted criminals from prison.
Sam| 3.2.10 @ 3:39PM
Albert-
I really like this post as well and agree every part except your last sentence. The prison system is more complex than the " we-need-to-get tough-on-crime-by-locking-away-evildoers" talking points.
But as far as guns go, I think you're 1oo% right and will be sure to use your arguments when my fellow college students (who generally support gun control) become outraged by the expected Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago.
Albert Frevele| 3.2.10 @ 7:13PM
Thanks form your comments. One thing though. That last item really isn't a "talking point." We literally have convicted murderers and a variety of other violent felons walking the streets of our cities. They are out because of either parole, work furlough, early release, overcrowding, plea bargaining, or whatever. Many of these people should never walk the streets again. But they do. Politicians write the laws that allow their release. Politicians appoint the parole board members who let them out. Politicians appoint the judges who reduce their sentences or let them go altogether. To reduce crime effectively requires that criminals be stopped, by force if necessary. That means citizens defending themselves personally (e.g 2nd Amendment) and the government defending us collectively by removing violent offenders from society at large. That's not "getting tough" it is simple common sense. Good luck with the college students. Although your biggest opposition is the faculty. Been there. Done that. Some of THOSE people are utterly impervious to logic (including "logic" professors.) And they TEACH!
Thom| 3.2.10 @ 6:56PM
"" The degree of regulation expands as the power/size of the weapon expands."
Sounds good when you say it but such things as black powder cannons, namely a 12 pounder properly loaded up will make a man portable RPG (aka “bazooka”) looks like a pop gun by effect but those things exists, can be created out of whole cloth and are essentially not “regulated” in the sense of what are considered man portable weapons. Having seen a 12 pounder bronze run out of the back of a pickup truck, set up and fired in a relatively short period of time by a “well regulated” crew and having personally served on a 2 inch mountain howitzer battery I find such statements regarding “bazookas” as a rationale for “gun control” both misinformed and disingenuous regarding the intent of the Second Amendment. What exactly was it that General Gates was on his way to capture and destroy when he was intercepted by the Militia at Concord and Lexington? Last time I looked into it, "pepper spray" was considered a weapon in many places and having it concealed was a felony.
Steve Schaper| 3.4.10 @ 10:47AM
Looking at the historical situation, any individual infantry or cavalry weapon was expected to be owned by the individual citizen. Crew-served weapons were typically stored in the local militia armory, on the township level.
Just as you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, so you may not use your weapons to knock over a bank.
The rights in the Bill of Rights are understood as an enumeration of some of the unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence, and pre-exist the civil government. Hence the civil government -may not- regulate or infringe upon them. It simply lacks the authority.
Ryan| 3.2.10 @ 2:02PM
The line has been drawn, and most gun owners support it. Class 3 firearms - such as fully-automatic weaponry and heavier - are often obtainable and strictly regulated.
Da Rue Stir| 3.6.10 @ 2:22PM
Sam,
Arm = a weapon. Arms = all weapons
The framers intended for those who are not members of the ruling class (the people) to possess weapons equivalent to those to the regular army so that corporations acting as civic government are NEVER the sole possessors of cohersive force = a weapon. Arms = all weapons
The framers intended for those who are not members of the ruling class (the people) to posess weapons equivalent to those to the regular army so that corporations acting as civic government are NEVER the sole possessors’ of coercive force
Ret. Marine| 3.3.10 @ 6:49AM
As easy as it is. If he weren't anything other than, why hide all the records, including time spent in the bowels of Indo? Got an answer for that?
Big Leo| 3.3.10 @ 3:11PM
Well regulated means familiar with the weapon and able to hit the target. Militia is a legally defined term that applies to every legal resident between 16 and 59. That's not opinion-- that's the legal Federal definition. Glad I was able to clear this up for you, so we won't be hearing from you again on this subject except to support the clear Constitutional right to bear arms.
MikeA54| 3.4.10 @ 11:12AM
If I were part of the Militia, I would pray that we were well regulated.
ptson| 3.5.10 @ 12:04AM
The [right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed] is what is NECESSARY for [A well regulated Militia] NOT laws that "infringe" on that freedom, be they federal, state or local.
Da Rue Stir| 3.6.10 @ 2:09PM
'well regulated" means self adhearence to the order of law, this is to imply that all weapons (arms) shall not be used for criminal intent.
It does not mean government control.
Damocles| 3.27.10 @ 7:17AM
For once, just forget your DailyKos leadership and think for yourself.
To help with your ignorance on the phrase, "well regulated," let me say that bob alou is correct as far as he goes. Also, "a well regulated militia" referred to problems Washington enumerated because the colonists who fought were so individualistic, they were not trained properly to be able to fight.
Washington wanted citizen soldiers who had their guns at home and who had been trained (like a reservist) to work in a coordinated fashion. A rabble can't win against a professional army without some discipline and training.
Flatdog| 3.2.10 @ 3:35PM
Marine, I hope you don't mind a Limey butting in on this debate, but I cannot understand why your Supreme Court even allows cases such as these any more. The Second Amendment has been in your Bill of Rights, part of your Constitution for over 200 years. Surely everything that can be said must have been by now? Maybe it's time for these illiberal socialists to move on, instead of banging the same tired old drum?
Here in Britain, our government banned handguns completely 12 years ago, as a knee-jerk reaction to a madman visiting an infant school and committing a tragic massacre. The reason that this nutter had licensed firearms was because the Scottish police had been derelict in their duty by allowing a known crazy to be issued with a firearms certificate. The law to prevent the tragedy was there already, but not enforced, so instead of punishing errant policemen, the crazies in our government banned handguns.
Now, our Olympic shooting teams have to go to France if they want to practice, and as we are hosting the 2012 Olympic Games, what the hell are they going to do with the shooting contests which are now illegal? They won't tell us.
Needless to say, death by shooting has become several times more likely in the past 12 years, as mad men and bad men have continued to arm themselves, and no law-abiding citizen has anything to defend themselves with. As for our police, we can't rely on them for protection because most of them wouldn't know how to use a gun, and in any case, it's a job-and-a-half to get the buggers out of the station on a cold night.
Thom| 3.2.10 @ 7:05PM
Flatdog, no problem butting in but one question? What was the point of all those struggles and bloodshed to establish "Common Law" if you won't fight for what was achieved at such cost? You let them disarm you without a fight just as your Royal Marines have allowed themselves to be disarmed by Iran twice without firing a shot. Perhaps the point of the lesson at Concord and Lexington escapes most Britons today? What do you need “arms” for if you aren’t going to use them for their intended purpose?
Flatdog| 3.3.10 @ 2:55AM
Thom, our Constitution has never been written down, and just consists of legal precedents. Common law only has authority because "it has always worked this way", rather than set in stone by being written into any statute.
Because of this, our unwritten common laws and unwritten Constitutional protections have gradually been eroded. This has been going on for a very long time, and your Founding Fathers were aware of it at the time that they framed your Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is why those documents are so robust.
Our Bill of Rights is written down, but over the past 20 years or so, it also has been trampled upon. So our MPs still have "Parliamentary Privelage" which allows them to get away with the sort of behaviour that would see the likes of you or I imprisoned, whereas the bit that says nobody can suffer a fine without being tried in court, has not worked for a while now. Policemen impose on-the-spot fines.
As for the behaviour of our Marines in the Gulf, I haven't any answers for you. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they have members of the fair sex with them these days, and are taught that they have to be "nice"? They are a bloody disgrace and a national embarassment. God help us if they're all like that.
Big Leo| 3.3.10 @ 3:13PM
If enough of you want your real freedom back, we can send the Aud over to a hidden harbor and arm you like the Germans did for the IRA. It worked once, so what the heck! The birthplace of freedom deserves to have it back.
Ret. Marine| 3.3.10 @ 6:58AM
I feel the pain brother. May I make a few suggestions. If at all possible, redress your Gov. officials. I am sure just as we have here in the States, many reports on the working of the issue, some in favor and many not. This does not change the facts. Look what happened in Austrailia, they took the defense away from the citizenery and the murder, robbery, and a host of other violent crimes insued as a result. Hows that change working for these people, left defenseless.
We in the Militia community have a saying here, "When the Second Amendment is taken away, that's when the Second Revolution officially begins"
Steve Schaper| 3.4.10 @ 10:49AM
And what of your own Bill of Rights of 1688? How will the "Reeds of Runneymede" go about enforcing -that-? It needs to be done.
Flatdog| 3.5.10 @ 9:16AM
The Bill of Rights has already been trampled on by the British Government, with no complaints from the British public. The reason nobody protested is because few know we even had a Bill of Rights, let alone what is in it.
The British will not defend their liberties. All they will do is whinge and complain, and do what they're told. That's all they did when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown sold Britain's Independence to the New European Soviet by signing the country up to the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty.
Now that we are merely a province of the EUSSR as a result of Lisbon, none of our laws are worth a damn because they are subsumed by EUSSR law.
reasonable| 3.4.10 @ 3:01PM
Flatdog, maybe if your citizens had been properly armed @ WWII your citizens could have saved your own country? I am licensed, trained to carry, everyday citizen and twice have used my pistol to protect my family and once a fellow unknown citizen. I do agree there should be some limitations on types of weapons and that is going to be a tuff call. Criminals, fellons, molestors, could be a start at excluded from owning or posession, jacketed ammunition, over 9 shot, nothing over semiautomatic, true sportsmans hunting long-guns. No citizen needs a AK-47 or similar type weapon.
Ok "wolves", jump on me!
Sons of Liberty| 3.4.10 @ 5:19PM
The sidearm is a defensive weapon. The main purpose of your side arm is to fight your way back to your rifle. Limiting the amount of amunition that can be carried in a magazine or the type of weapon a citizen can own does not do one thing to impede crime. Besides, most of the AK-47 type firearms available to the public are no more deadly than any other semiautomatic "hunting" rifle. I put hunting in quotations because every battle rifle in the inventory of the US military, from the founding of this country up to this present day, has been used for hunting. That includes the semi-automatic version of our current M-16 and M4 carbine. The assault weapon ban of 1994 was a farce. Banning firearms because of the way they look just demonstrates ignorance on the part of our elected officials and the gullible public. Features like pistol grips, bayonet lugs, "flash hiders" and adjustable stocks are cosmetic and ergonomic in nature and do nothing to make a rifle more "dangerous."
Ret. Army| 3.4.10 @ 10:10PM
How many amendments are there in the Bill of Rights?
What is an absolute clause/phrase?
Which amendments use "people"?
Which amendments use "person"?
Which amendments state a reason for the amendment?
When you go hunting, do you carry a rifle or shotgun?
Which amendments reflect abuse by the British on the Colonies?
I pause for your reply.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.10 @ 8:23AM
I'm with you, Marine.
However, as we have discussed before, the only good time to have a handgun handy, (instead of a shoulder fired weapon), is when you are up on the roof cleaning leaves or something.
Shoulder fired arms, especially shotguns, slung on one's back, are a wonderful prescription to deter crime.
Picture the little criminal nerd with his concealed pop-gun entering a cafe or store full of folks with shotguns, and perhaps a couple of mini-14s.
...heh...very short crime career.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.10 @ 9:04AM
Agreed Old Texican. If you're down to using a side arm you're screwed. But it's better than nothing, although I'd prefer my alley sweeper with 00 buck any day to clear the vermin off the porch or out of the living room. I'll replace the woodwork later.
Copyleftist: Your post is, in a twisted way, an admission that gun ownership is a Constitutional right. Notice that there are some strong punctuations between the parts of that Ammendment that separates it into distinct parts. Fondling guns is not something that a serious gun owner does. A gun is a lethal tool that deserves respect. People who fondle guns are likely to shoot themselves.
brutus6| 3.2.10 @ 11:34AM
Mr. Jenkins, guns can be enjoyed beyond their utilitarian purposes of hunting and self-defense. For example, appreciating the design and craftsmanship of my autoloading handguns as I fire and clean them: the 1911's hinged link lockup, the Springfield P9 and other CZ75 variants' fixed link lockup, and my sweet little P229 Sig's ramp and ejection port lockup. I even bought a CZ52 just because it borrows its roller lockup design from the iconic German MG42 belt-fed machine gun seen in all the old WWII movies. Field-stripped, I like to look down in the CZ52's frame at those two cute little rollers and think, "coool..." That, and because I like the way its 7.62x25 cartridge makes a really loud 'BOOM!'
Don't get me started on the long guns...
So you see, I've been 'fondling' my guns since I bought my first in '91, and (sound of me knocking on wood..) I haven't shot myself yet.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.10 @ 4:59PM
Dear Brutus6
I think you are appreciative of the way guns are engineered or built, much like admiring the lines of a well bred dog or other animal, or a classic auto. My admiration is limited to the reliability of an item, can it be quickly broken down for a field cleaning, or fixed, and in the case of a jam, quickly cleared? Does it get the job done with the least of problems? Yes I am utilitarian. I was raised that way.
Maxwell| 3.2.10 @ 9:14AM
I prefer an AR15 to your Mini 14. But it is your option.
Paul| 3.2.10 @ 10:18AM
Maxwell, I too, prefer my AR15, but there are many good options! Keep buyin' ammo, fellas! I think it may be needed in the near future.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.10 @ 11:33AM
Guys, I've gotten slightly older and my reflexes and eyesight aren't as acute as they once were. That's why I prefer the 12 ga. stove pipe that's cut barely legal. The sound of racking a round into the chamber still sends chills up my spine.
Old Texican: I thought gun racks were standard equipment on pick-ups.
Blackwatch| 3.2.10 @ 4:30PM
How about big ugly black rifles with pistol grips for a well regulated militia? Let's train the 10% of the public who is interested and arm them--kinda like the Swiss model of self-defense. In Switzerland the men have a fully automatic rifle and plenty of ammo on hand in case of invasion. It works there. It would work here if our Government trusted us. We don't even allow soldiers (actual trained ARMY soldiers!! WTF!!) to have firearms (the horror!!) on their person while on an ARMY BASE---during a war!!!
Jeez how the hell did we fall so far so fast?? How did we win WWII anyway?
Everytime a whacko shoots up a school or business the brave men with big ugly black rifles and a badge show up to deal with said psycho.
Ret. Marine| 3.3.10 @ 7:01AM
Agree, an armed society is a polite society. Thanks for the kind words.
Paul| 3.2.10 @ 8:49AM
Copyleft, Handguns have never been deemed illegal, so what does "well regulated" have to do with anything? This is about a persons right to own a LEGAL weapon...period! You damn tree huggers need to exile in Europe where you'll fit in a little better.
Flatdog | 3.2.10 @ 3:51PM
Paul, I can assure you we don't want those shitehawks over here. We have way too many of our own!
Deborah D | 3.2.10 @ 8:52AM
In any totalitarian state, first they come for the press and the guns. That's why the founders put the right to keep and bear arms right after the first amendment. These were very wise men who wrote our Constitution. Those who think they are so smart today have absolutely no concept of history.
Louis Jenkins| 3.2.10 @ 9:07AM
Well Deborah, they've got most of the press and without a struggle. The equation is getting smaller isn't it?
Deborah D | 3.2.10 @ 9:12AM
Yes, Louis -- that's why I keep Charlton Heston in the back of my mind! :)
Robert Pinkerton| 3.2.10 @ 8:53AM
The handgun is the city person's tool of choice for resistance to -- and triumph over -- interpersonal criminal aggression. Where a declared would-be armed robber lies dead on the floor of his intended victim's shop, where is the wrong? When a declared would-be rapist lies dead at his intended victim's feet, where is the wrong?
Ryan| 3.2.10 @ 10:30AM
When seconds count, the cops are there in minutes!
doolittle| 3.2.10 @ 10:01AM
letters to the editor really reveal public sentiment better than polls, in my view. And usually the snarky one are from the anti-gunners or people with no idea of what the Founders REALLY intended
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.10 @ 10:28AM
Heh, you folks from the northeast would get a tickle driving around down here. A rifle AND a shotgun on a rear windshield rack of a pickup, doesn't even get noticed it is so common.
Walking down town Houston with a long gun in a case is perfectly acceptable.
Heh, we sure are polite down here...think there is any connection?
Pete| 3.2.10 @ 10:58AM
Study after study after study concludes that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime. It is so consistent it is almost funny. But then, just as the healthcare bill isn't about health, gun banners aren't about guns...it's all about power, money and control.
kroz| 3.2.10 @ 2:58PM
Right on target! You're a straight shooter.
Flatdog| 3.2.10 @ 4:03PM
Pete, I can vouch for that first-hand. I grew up in Rhodesia in the '70s, and we were all armed, mostly with shotguns and automatic weapons, owing to the terrorist war. Other than terrorist attrocities, mostly committed against remote farmers and tribespeople, crime was very low indeed.
Big Leo| 3.3.10 @ 3:16PM
I was recruited for the Rhodesian railway guard in the seventies but decided not to go for fear of losing my citizenship. It was a gallant fight and I'm sorry I missed it, and sorrier still that you lost your country, just as my grandparents did in Russia.
Flatdog| 3.5.10 @ 9:35AM
Hi Big Leo, There were around 300 US citizens fighting out there. They were known as The Crippled Eagles, and most were Vietnam veterans. See toward the bottom of the page http://www.rhodesia.nl/saluteth.htm
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 3.2.10 @ 11:02AM
The Second Amendment reads in full: “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.”
So I must ask, “What part of ‘right of the people’ don’t liberal dictator-wannabes not understand? When that is taken with the conclusion ‘shall not be infringed’, there is clearly only one correct decision by any court seeking to uphold the oath its justices took upon assuming office. I will go so far as to posit that since this is a specific enumerated “Right of the People”, gum’mint infringes on OUR Right by requiring Americans to pay for gun registration, gun permits, gun classes, and guns. Every American should not only be provided public education on the proper use of all weapons, but a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle at no cost, especially since the current system discriminates against those with low incomes unable to afford all these strangling ‘fees’. After all, those same liberal dictator-wannabes believe that all Americans are entitled to free, comprehensive gum’mint healthcare, even though only the most fertile imagination can find that ‘right’ in OUR Constitution. So if an imaginary right is an entitlement, why isn’t a clearly written one that anybody not a liberal dictator-wannabes can understand?
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day 4/15/2 Yo (aka 2010 A.D.)
Only 1,055 days to go!
George S| 3.2.10 @ 11:36AM
I see two problems as a consequence of any ruling the Court makes.
The first problem is how to address the legitimate purpose of government in maintaining order; obviously guns cannot be procured by anyone, anytime, with no questions asked. The Court would have to get into the mud of identifying which bars to legal ownership is still the purview of the states. They tend to shy away from that. If the Court rules against Chicago, does it still allow the states to set what disqualifies applicants? Does the least restrictive State set the standard? It must let states set restrictions, and therefore it won't be long before states expand the definition of mentally incompetent or extend the ban to those convicted of ANY offense (parking tickets?). The Court will not entertain individual actions (such as drawn out application times) as either the states can ban under certain conditions or not. Any "tests" set up by the Court as a guide to the exception will only give the lower courts the cover they need to ignore any ruling from above; for they will rule on those tests.
The second problem is if the Court rules for Chicago that Due Process or Immunities does not apply to the Second Amendment. That may be a blessing in disguise as it would mean that Gay Marriage, or other liberal policies foisted by the Equal Protection clause can never gain absent a constitutional convention. But it would be a nightmare if some states decided that the ruling upholds their 10th Amendment privilege to ignore the Bill of Rights, claiming they are Federal and not state protections -- which is what such a ruling may signal.
I see a muddled ruling upholding the SA, but with Sandra Day O'Connor type multi-pronged tests, allowing states to keep some of their restrictions in place while kicking it to lower courts for specific redress.
Don't look to get a gun without coming face to face at some point with the Police Chief, or being put under a microscope by him, irrespective on how the Court rules.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 3.2.10 @ 12:08PM
Based on the Fifth Amendment, all Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This right has been granted even to terrorists caught red-handed committing criminal acts against the People of this country. Any attempt by the gum’mint at any level to infringe on the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is nothing less than a finding of guilt without due process. And unless anyone is so-proven involved in crimes which caused injury to others, no gum’mint has any business keeping inventory of whatever weapons we possess. Much better that they assume we are all armed to the teeth and very, very angry at their greed and corruption.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day 4/15/2 Yo (aka 2010 A.D.)
Only 1,055 days to go!
SlimPatriot| 3.2.10 @ 12:15PM
The 2nd Ammendment provides for the citizenry blowing the brains out the back of government heads and nothing else. Doesn't make much sense to have gun owners regulated by that same government.
Richard Rogers| 3.2.10 @ 12:16PM
I may have missed something but in my scanning of these comments, I did not see a single one that acknowledged the main issue in this case, the issue of incorporation; ie, are the states bound by the same Constitutional limitations as the Federal Government? It's curious that the Framers would have been vague on this point.
However, it seems to me, a mere simpleminded engineer, that the "immunity" provision of the Fourteenth is what best applies. States are forbidden from denying citizens immunities granted by the Constitution. In this case the immunity is immunity from being deprived of gun ownership. I don't get the "equal protection" argument. That seems only to prevent states from applying its laws unequally among its own citizens.
Ryan| 3.2.10 @ 2:04PM
The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights, it protects them.
Richard Rogers| 3.2.10 @ 12:29PM
Me again. On rereading the article, I realized that I meant to question the "due precess" argument rather than "equal protection" - same conclusion, though. It seems like an ordinance properly enacted by the City of Chicago could be considered to be due process.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 3.2.10 @ 1:16PM
By requiring citizens to submit and pay for criminal background checks in order to prove that they have never been convicted of a crime, OUR rights to not incriminate or testify against ourselves are violated. There exists a presumption on the part of gum’mint that we are guilty unless we can prove the contrary. This violates the Fifth Amendment since in such cases the gum’mint has determined our guilt before trial. Sort of like the AG declaring that the New York terror trials will produce ‘guilty’ verdicts before the cases are even heard.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day 4/15/2 Yo (aka 2010 A.D.)
Only 1,055 days to go!
Richard Rogers| 3.2.10 @ 2:44PM
Sorry, can't go there with you on that. I guess that if you believe that you are at risk of being charged with a crime and believe that by applying for a firearm permit you expose yourself and thereby put yourself in jeopardy, then maybe that looks like self incrimination. As for the presumption of innocence, that's something that, under the Constitution, you are entitled to in a criminal court not in the permit office.
It's interesting that the guarantee of presumption of innocence in state courts comes to you from the Federal Constitution only through the concept of incorporation. If they deny that incorporation applies to the Second Amendment, then you could equally argue that freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not have to be respected by the states. Why should the First and the Second be treated any differently?
Thom| 3.2.10 @ 7:28PM
Richard, not to make too fine a point with this kind of academic argument but if I had to comply with Washington DCs “reasonable” restrictions I would be broke or have to move out of the City. I made this point when Heller was announced. Great now we all know that we have the “right to keep and bear arms” provided we can afford the privilege of doing so. Apply those same “reasonable restrictions” to any other enumerated right and see how that works out. One gun or one hundred, I either have the right or not. The “taxing” of the exercise of the Right renders it a privilege just like owning multiple cars, boats, etc.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.10 @ 12:38PM
I worked behind the Iron Curtain during the cold war.
Upon arriving in Russia...or east Germany...etc, one was given the "rule".
ie:
"We already gotcha'! You cannot...cannot, obey our laws. They are designed to trap you whatever you do."
Quite simply, I personally shall not comply with any registration or collection of firearms. I shall not!
There are other laws the communists, (pardon the shorthand), may pass that I SHALL NOT COMPLY WITH!
There are some 100 million fellow citizens who feel the same way...and plenty of weapons to spread around to another 100 million patriots. Heck, one can only shoot one gun at a time...right?
I would be delighted to "loan" a weapon to a fellow patriot if the communists push things that far.
So...the real issue is with States...or cities...becoming "ghost towns" like Detroit has become.
Texas just keeps inheriting the best patriots from the idiot cities.
Y'all comeon, and welcome.
Fascist| 3.2.10 @ 3:43PM
Communists? Where? Lets SHOOT'EM down!!
Blackwatch| 3.2.10 @ 4:46PM
How witty of you sir!
Look at the entire Democrat Congress and you'll find plenty of closet-commies for you to plink at. You may want to choose a AR-15, seems to be the firearm of choice on this blog. If you can't aford it try the Keltec SU16C--a bargain at $650. Anyway when you are finished set up the circular firing squad and finish your little National Socialist Workers Party self too. don't forget to include your boss Mr. Soros.
Fascist| 3.2.10 @ 6:17PM
Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.
Where do you stand in the political spectrum?
Some words from Hitler:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the *Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
* You may replace it with: leftist thoughts.
Nogunsforgoons| 3.2.10 @ 7:24PM
If they are 'closet-commies' I can say the same of a right winger a 'closet-fascist'.
Big Leo| 3.3.10 @ 3:20PM
I've got some bad news for you, Fascist-- Hitler lied. Actually, that pretty much defines his whole persona.
Steve Schaper| 3.4.10 @ 11:00AM
Hitler was a post-modernist neo-pagan, not a Christian, though he did lie while campaigning. But no serious person can suggest he was a Christian apart from lying themselves.
Fascism, or corporatism, along with group-identity politics is the belief of the Left, not of the Right, in America, as these terms are defined. The farthest right in America is anarchism, not totalitarianism. As you move left, you encounter the libertarians, then the constitutionalists, then the country club/Rockefeller Republicans, then the moderate Democrats, few of whom survive, then the fascist Democrats like Clinton then the Maoists like Obama and his gang of commissars.
One of Hitler's first acts was to ban citizen ownership of firearms. You'd like him.
Fascist| 3.4.10 @ 2:43PM
Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him. Many Christians throughout history have opposed Christian priests for various reasons; this does not necessarily make one against one's own Christian beliefs. Nor did the Vatican's Pope & bishops ever disown him; in fact they blessed him! As evidence to his claimed Christianity, he said:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
* -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Hitler's rise to power in Germany began[1] in September 1919 when Hitler joined the political party that was[2] known as the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (abbreviated as DAP, and later commonly referred to as the Nazi Party). This political party was formed and developed during the post-World War I era. It was anti-Marxist and was opposed to the democratic post-war government of the Weimar Republic and the Treaty of Versailles; and it advocated extreme nationalism and Pan-Germanism as well as virulent anti-Semitism.
Big Leo| 3.3.10 @ 3:19PM
We've been shooting Communists in our family since 1917. Apparently it worked, since there are so few of them left in Russia. Now, let's get to work on the United States.
The Big Leo Family - When You Absolutely Need Communists Exterminated Overnight-- since 1917
Bram| 3.2.10 @ 4:07PM
According to Harvey Silverglate, we all commit three federal felonies a day. I think our fine Reps in Congress are setting up a similar system of entrapment.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 3.2.10 @ 1:22PM
That’s “well regulated Glock” as in cleaned and oiled.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Celebrate Galt Day 4/15/2 Yo (aka 2010 A.D.)
Only 1,055 days to go!
Ryan| 3.2.10 @ 2:06PM
Ugh. Glocks.
(Sorry, I'm on the "hate it" side of the love-'em or hate-'em relationship. A "safety" on the trigger? Really?)
Thom| 3.2.10 @ 7:30PM
"A "safety" on the trigger? Really?" Ryan, Glocks work just like revolvers. Seen any safeties on them lately?
Bydand76| 3.2.10 @ 10:39PM
AND Just like the S&W Sigma series, the safety is in the trigger! No big deal. Seriously? If you want a handgun get a Springfield .44 ACP. WOW!
I will add that the Springfield SOCOM II is about one of the best weapon systems I have ever seen.
Compact, light, dead accurate and packs a 7.62 round that will put a mule down on its ass ( No pun intended of course!)
With that being said I think all of the objectors here need to go back and study some history because a "well regulated" militia was never a professional military organization at all. It was a armed citizen who could be anywhere at anytime ready to do combat at a moments notice with whomever!
Minuteman ring a bell? Rogers Rangers anyone?
And just for kicks and giggles.....
There is no difference between a Communist and a Fascist except the degree of socialism to which they practice. BOTH are hard targets in my humble opinion!
PRO LIBERTATE!
Non Inferiora Secutus!
Big Leo| 3.3.10 @ 3:22PM
Ryan -- I sympathize. I was a wheel gun fanatic until I used my first Glock. Now I'm a True Believer-- an automatic that is as reliable as a revolver. Eat your heart out, Smith and Wesson.
Pingback| 3.2.10 @ 1:10PM
Guns Before the Court « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
MkeN| 3.2.10 @ 1:56PM
Tough to take you guys seriously on constitutional issues when you keep messing this up. RObert Bork eviscerated this line of argument in Tempting of America. Privileges and immunities is a dead letter, and cannot be used.
Bram| 3.2.10 @ 4:03PM
Gee, I must be a bitter clinger. No lawyer is going to convince me it isn't my right.
Nogunsforgoons| 3.2.10 @ 7:52PM
A lawyer will not convince you that it is not your right but a liar will convince you it is.
Bram| 3.2.10 @ 11:02PM
Ah, because I'm to dumb.
Just because I've read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and earned a BA in American History doesn't mean I can figure it out myself.
Nogunsforgoons| 3.4.10 @ 2:23PM
You are dumb. I can see that! I blame the educational system and the chosen reading materials. Unless, of course it's from birth.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.10 @ 1:56PM
Heh! That was a good one, Gill.
Fascist| 3.2.10 @ 2:43PM
Some words from Hitler:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the *Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
* You may replace it with: leftist thoughts.
Conservative| 3.3.10 @ 12:56PM
Some words from God:
"For God so loved the *world He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." Jn. 3:16.
*You may replace it with: Jew
*You may replace it with Gentile
*You may replace it with Fascist.
Heatpacker| 3.2.10 @ 3:02PM
In the 1950's, segregationists tried to make the argument that discrimination on the basis of skin color was a matter of 'state's rights' and that the Federal government had no power to extend Consititutional protections to the aggrieved parties. It is odd to see left-wing Democrats make this same 'state's rights' argument with regards to the Second Amendment. They seem to think that Constitutional protections may be selectively denied. Sorry guys. If it's in the Bill of Rights, it's an individual right and cannot be infringed by ANY level of government.
Nogunsforgoons| 3.2.10 @ 3:38PM
Great comparison you're making: The human right to live with dignity and the human right to own guns. C'mon now! Get your priorities straight, righty. ;)
Blackwatch| 3.2.10 @ 4:56PM
No ability for self defense = loss of your human rights at the hands of those who want to take those rights
I just watched "Hotel Rwanda" last weekend. Man if those poor people who were systematically slaughtered (500,000 people butchered) had possession of a measily .22 pistol EACH there would not have been the ethnic slaughter. As it was the dead could not fight back.
Stay armed my friend.
Nogunsforgoons| 3.2.10 @ 6:11PM
Another great comparison: Africa and the USA.
What kind of excuse is that Blackwatch?!!!
Deborah D | 3.3.10 @ 6:50AM
Who says the USA couldn't devolve into some kind of totalitarian state? That was his point, and that's the point of the Second Amendment. If you don't get that, then you don't know history. Or is it that you just don't want Americans to be able to defend themselves?
Flatdog| 3.3.10 @ 8:34AM
Nogunsforgoons, what is it that you are trying to imply? "These things happen in Africa because they're savages, but never in the US because Americans are civilised"?
Civilisation is a very thin veneer, easily removed. Civilised societies can and do revert to savagery, and if that happens in the US, you'd better pray that you have access to guns.
Nogunsforgoons| 3.3.10 @ 2:46PM
How about bibles instead of guns? You can use it to kill a 'commie' or a 'nazi' with a strong strike.
Sorry, I know what you mean. I would like a gun in that case. I'll better get one fast, 2012 is approaching. The world may turn into complete chaos.
Heatpacker| 3.3.10 @ 8:46AM
You are a first-class bonehead. What, exactly, is the justification that the City of Chicago is providing for violating the Second Amendment? Aren't they claiming that a municipality has the authority to deny individuals the right to bear arms? Isn't this tantamount to claiming that local laws may supersede the Consititution? Isn't that what segregationists were claiming? Weren't they claiming that the Tenth Amendment gave them the authority to enact discriminatory laws? Weren't they selectively depriving individuals of their rights, in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Mercian| 3.4.10 @ 11:06AM
That's not so odd. It was the Democrats then, and the Democrats now. The Democrats came up with the first gun control laws in this country since the British surrendered at Yorktown, in the 1870s, to remove weapons from the hands of freed slaves, so that they could oppress them with the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Then they also used State's rights to reject the Republican's Civil Rights act of 1877. Ironically, these same Democrats rejected State's Rights with the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott, and left America because Lincoln indicated he would not enforce that law against State's Rights in the free States.
Jim O'Brien| 3.2.10 @ 4:24PM
If states and cities are allowed to make laws which negate or infringe upon the Second Amendment, then they could do the same with regard to the rest of the Constitution. How about local laws which limit freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petition? How about a local law which allows the police to be quartered in your home? How about a local law which allows for slavery?
Jay | 3.2.10 @ 4:47PM
The 2nd amendment says we as Americans have a right to bear arms...
But when it comes to other countries...we don't want them to bear arms...see what I'm saying?
Here's an article I found interesting...
http://www.politics3.com/ViewA.....px?AID=367
http://www.bit.ly/cYaoyG
Agree or Disagree?
Mike| 3.2.10 @ 6:07PM
When will I get my Second Amendment right to carry a concealed gun into the U.S. Supreme Court?
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.2.10 @ 9:24PM
Mike,
Don't conceal it!
Mike| 3.2.10 @ 10:38PM
Ken,
Good point.
I find it interesting that the Supreme Court is unwilling to subject itself to the same rules that it is so readily willing to impose on the rest of us.
Crawler| 3.2.10 @ 11:30PM
What if Chicago mandated that only the fair-haired females of women voters could vote?
No brainer, eh?
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
ThePricklyThorn| 3.3.10 @ 7:31AM
All rights are God given, and it is up to us to fight for them whenever anyone other then God tries to take them away from us, and this includes the government. Government can only play two roles when it comes to these rights: 1) It can work to protect them, or 2) it can infringe upon them. But make no mistake, government cannot "Give" rights to anyone....
Tim| 3.3.10 @ 9:51AM
Well regulated, as in you can have a rifle but not a pointy knife on the end, you can have handgun but only one that holds ten bullets.
Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 7:34PM
SCOTUS will again take the wimp road « Conservative Libertarian Outpost links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 9:27PM
NHL trade deadline: Toronto Maple Leafs make moves, but don't deal … | Toronto Maple links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Busbar Processor Machine | 3.4.10 @ 8:10AM
Fivestar Tools,Manufacture Busbar Processor Machine,With busbar cutting tool,bending tool and punching tool.
Richard Baker| 3.4.10 @ 9:49AM
Jim O'Brien:
As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Mayor Daley and his "legal" minions posit that the 2nd Amendment is applicable only within Federal enclaves such as DC. That would mean that the entire Bill of Rights would apply only within those enclaves. Absurd.
Michael Ejercito | 3.4.10 @ 1:40PM
Freedom haters like Daley generally have to use absurd arguments.
Web Smith | 3.4.10 @ 11:40AM
States and cities do not get to pick which parts of the Constitution apply to them. The entire Constitution was agreed to and ratified by the states as a condition of forming and belonging to the union. The Constitution is what allows the federal government to create laws. Without it, no federal law is valid. Every part of the Constitution applies to every nook and cranny in the country. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to Chicago, then all federal laws are null and void. Some cities and/or states may decide to not let women or minorities vote and some may decide to make slavery legal. Some may decide to eliminate freedom of speech and religion. The Constitution provides a way to change it, but ignoring it and violating it are not approved methods.
Robert| 3.4.10 @ 11:53AM
when will you wake up
infowars.com
henrymakow.com
goodnewsaboutgod.com
zionist jewish star of david on the top of the american seal
WAKEUP WAKEUP WAKE UP
evines| 3.4.10 @ 1:41PM
Consider this statement. A well educated populace being necessary to maintain a free State, the Right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Does this mean that only well educated people should have the right to own books.
Susan W.| 3.4.10 @ 10:46PM
This is a no-brainer. Our founding fathers saw the need to protect our right to bear arms as fundamental and were certain to place it in the founding documents. The "shall not infringe" was their guarantee that this right could not be taken from us by any government, whether federal, state, or municipal. Thus, the Bill of Rights cannot be stripped from citizens by a state or a county government. We all know that any law of a state or municipality that violates the U.S. Constitution cannot stand and is, therefore, deemed "unconstitutional." This is a simple matter. So the libersals must resort to smoke and mirrors to try to "muddy the water" and create confusion. I trust that the Judges in this matter are capable of seeing through the "mud" they stir up to the clear meaning of "shall not infringe" and the original intent guaranteed by our founding documents. Americans have a fundamental right to bear arms, period. States and Cities have no right to infringe upon that basic fundamental right. Only a Constitutional Amendment could do that.
Da Rue Stir| 3.6.10 @ 2:32PM
Read the first part of the second amendment backwards using the definitions of the words and it is a little more clear...
A condition of existence (state) without undue imposition (free) to be without fear (security) that which we cannot be without (necessary) is a civilian army/navy (militia) which adheres to the order of law (well regulated). Well regulated is taken to mean not a bunch of bandits. There is a fine line between armed people asking for contributions (taxes) and extortion. All Militia members are to be self funded as opposed to a private standing army which is wholly funded by an individual or corporation.
The second part must also be understood to say...
That which cannot be taken away (The right) from those who are not members of the ruling class (the people) to have in their possession (keep) and actively USE in the civilian army (bare) all weapons (arms) shall not be in any way diminished (infringed).
Nowhere does it specifically mention the use of arms (all weapons) shall be against the government or criminals or to repel foreign invaders. The only word in the entire Constitution missing from the Marriam Webster’s dictionary is the plural of Arm: a weapon, why is that?
Da Rue Stir| 3.6.10 @ 2:34PM
Thomas Jefferson wrote "Tyranny shall never stand in these United States so long as the whole of the armed populous constitutes a force greater than the regular army".
Alexander Hamilton wrote "while we can not allow individuals or corporation to maintain private standing armies which could pose a threat to the people or the republic, we can not assume militias controlled by the government will protect the people from the government"
First we should stop the police from murdering people and claiming they died of delusional paranoia after being shot multiple times in the "war on drugs". The FBI statistics on justifiable homicide by the police is a lie. No agency tracks “Death by delusional paranoia” all of those “Right to Life” violations are off the books.
Am I the only person who recognizes that city, county & state governments are corporations maintaining standing armies (police) which are often a greater threat to the people than any foreign terrorist will ever be!
Then we should amend the constitution so that the "regular army" which no longer has weapons equivalent to those KEPT by the people from ever being used against the people. Remember WACO?
Ruben Luna| 3.6.10 @ 8:45PM
As in the days of Al Capone; it is a fact that people were nice to each other, why?
Because no one knew who had a concealed weapon.
George | 3.8.10 @ 7:33AM
The 2nd Amendment was inserted in the Constitution by successful armed insurrectionaries, who feared even the perversion of the limitations on government actions provided in the Constitution. The militia are the armed people, and the 2nd Amendment does not state how many people make up a militia constitutionally authorized to over throw a tyrannical government and to arrest and execute offenders. Certainly, not every available militia member has to participate in the overthrow, so the meaning of the Amendment is based on success. But the meaning of the amendment is clear; we are armed to defend our liberties, and we determine when out liberties are violated. Government takeover of health care; illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; forced racial integration and aid to Isreal, may morally trigger an armed insurrection and thew arrest and execution of tryanical individuals. It's a matter of success.
ghdmanufactoryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 3:45AM
hgj
sunglass | 4.4.10 @ 3:48AM
fjhk
paulsmithoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 3:58AM
fhdgh
burberryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 4:01AM
dyhtg
www.sunglass-mall.com | 4.6.10 @ 2:22AM
You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com