Author Topic: Scope of Second Amendment questioned (Read 7670 times)

BLACKDOG · « **on:** Dec 08, 2006, 05:10:48 PM »

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-gun-ban,1,4331540.story

Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
5:49 PM PST, December 7, 2006

WASHINGTON -- 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.

ADVERTISEMENT
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?"

* __

fricken $That\'s Gay$

jimbo74 · « **Reply #1 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 05:23:33 PM »

i beleive there is a valid point, however i feel that it isnt going to fly, or at least not for long... judges are an appointed position, and even still, this is where politics will ocme into play... thats jsut how the system works....

an amendment is afterall "to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition"

abnormaltoy · « **Reply #2 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 05:30:57 PM »

There is, in the US code a section regarding a militia. It states that all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are considered the members. It further states, that the States are responsible for the training and the Feds are to provide the arms.
I may have the wording wrong...it's been a while since I last read the code, but, that's the gist of it.

abnormaltoy · « **Reply #3 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 05:35:44 PM »

My take on the 2nd is...what ever weapon I desire, I have the right to keep and bear. Whether that a butter knife, soup spoon, pistol or an M1 A1.

DTB · « **Reply #4 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 05:50:52 PM »

Quote from: abnormaltoy on Dec 08, 2006, 05:35:44 PM

My take on the 2nd is...what ever weapon I desire, I have the right to keep and bear. Whether that a butter knife, soup spoon, pistol or an M1 A1.

anyone know where to pick u p a good fitty cal for cheap?

thanks.....collier

*** YELLER *** · « **Reply #5 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 06:07:24 PM »

LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THAT ...

I WILL GIVE UP MY FIRE ARMS
AS SOON AS THEY PRY THEM
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.....

SEMPER FI DO OR DIE

kneedownnate · « **Reply #6 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 08:10:18 PM »

Ridiculous. Just frickin ridiculous. I don't NEED a gun. Hell, I don't NEED a car, tv, ps2, computer, and so on, but I like them. I enjoy guns and hunting, and I can't possibly see how somebody can tell me that I shouldn't be able to do either JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T APPROVE! That's all it really boils down to. The individuals who try passing these amendments or bills don't like guns, and especially don't like hunting (though they've doubtfully tried either), and somehow they seem to think that gives them the right to say we shouldn't have those privelages.

Ridiculous, just frickin ridiculous

BLACKDOG · « **Reply #7 on:** Dec 08, 2006, 08:45:59 PM »

Quote from: abnormaltoy on Dec 08, 2006, 05:30:57 PM

There is, in the US code a section regarding a militia. It states that all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are considered the members. It further states, that the States are responsible for the training and the Feds are to provide the arms.
I may have the wording wrong...it's been a while since I last read the code, but, that's the gist of it.

US code? are you talking about the amendment?

I had a discussion with a teacher in one of my classes about his views on the "misinterpretation" of the 2nd amendment. His was that if you're not in a militia then there is no right for you to bear arms.

My arguement was that as a man eligible to be drafted, I am a member of the US militia. This is according to any dictionary definition of the word, in this case the American Heritage Dictionary. As such, I have the right to bear arms. Of course, to be equal, women must also have the right to bear arms.

MILITIA
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) Pronunciation Key
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

abnormaltoy · « **Reply #8 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 06:30:33 AM »

Here BD, check these out.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000332----000-notes.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm

http://www.gunlawnews.org/Miller.html

I liken the Constitution to be the "Reader Digest" version of our government, it states the basic overview and the minimum guarantees and the US Code to be the day to day operations manual.

mudguts · « **Reply #9 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 07:58:18 AM »

When they come for my guns, I'll give them the lead first.

6.72:1 · « **Reply #10 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 04:50:09 PM »

Quote from: mudguts on Dec 09, 2006, 07:58:18 AM

When they come for my guns, I'll give them the lead first.

I heard that.

Wait 'till they get to the South....

My grandmother has a gun. Everybody has a gun in the South.

6.72:1 · « **Reply #11 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 04:51:16 PM »

Quote from: oldyellercj on Dec 08, 2006, 06:07:24 PM

LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT THAT ...

I WILL GIVE UP MY FIRE ARMS
AS SOON AS THEY PRY THEM
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.....

SEMPER FI DO OR DIE

Right on.

BLACKDOG · « **Reply #12 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 06:05:19 PM »

Quote from: abnormaltoy on Dec 09, 2006, 06:30:33 AM

Here BD, check these out.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000332----000-notes.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm

http://www.gunlawnews.org/Miller.html

I liken the Constitution to be the "Reader Digest" version of our government, it states the basic overview and the minimum guarantees and the US Code to be the day to day operations manual.

Cool thanks.

have to give them a read

abnormaltoy · « **Reply #13 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 06:12:37 PM »

Quote from: BLACKDOG on Dec 09, 2006, 06:05:19 PM

Cool thanks. have to give them a read

No problem...a well informed and well armed citizenry is a corrupt governments greatest fear!

6.72:1 · « **Reply #14 on:** Dec 09, 2006, 06:14:04 PM »

Quote from: abnormaltoy on Dec 09, 2006, 06:12:37 PM

No problem...a well informed and well armed citizenry is a corrupt governments greatest fear!

Hey, the government isn't going to protect you in a bad neighborhood.

I agree Sir.

Oddmar · « **Reply #15 on:** Dec 10, 2006, 09:59:44 PM »

Quote from: Dirt Toy Boy on Dec 08, 2006, 05:50:52 PM

anyone know where to pick u p a good fifty cal for cheap?
thanks.....collier

LOL...yeah, i do...anytime you want a so-called assault weapon, just ask...my favorite hobby.

Here's a link to a bolt action .50, NO FFL REQUIRED, ships directly to your door, legally...(the BATF (Bad Attitude Towards Freedom) defines the lower reciever of an AR-15 as the 'firearm'). This is an upper reciever that needs any AR lower to be complete...by itself, it is NOT a firearm. Not the absolute cheapest .50 out there, but pretty close.
http://www.safetyharborfirearms.com/

Back on track here...
The United States Constitution is a contract written By The People granting powers to, and limiting the power of, government. The Bill of Rights is a section of the United States Constitution that states some of the rights all of the people posses at birth. These rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken away from you, except by death.

The American sheeple, mistakenly believing that more restrictive laws will somehow protect them from harm, have unconsiously allowed government to restrict their ability to freely exercise these rights. The politicians in office want the public to be afraid, want to take guns off the streets, out of the hands of the general public...that means job security for them, more laws need to be passed to protect you..."We need a bigger budget this year, need to hire more police. See how hard we're working to protect you...?".

However, no law can ever limit or remove your inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of your other Rights. Privledges can be taken away, Rights cannot.

Follow this link and read what's there...it will enlighten you as to the original meaning of the second amendment.

http://www.awrm.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000002

BikerTrash · « **Reply #16 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 08:52:45 AM »

I am afraid of the government that does not want me have a way to defend my self.

germ · « **Reply #17 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 10:21:42 AM »

Part of the reason that the milita and the right to bear arms is in the constitution in the first place is to protect the citizens from a tyranical government. The idea being that if the government overstepped their bounds as outlined by the constitution, we the people could overtake the Govt, by force if needed, and correct the wrongs of the elected officials and re-instate a government by the people and for the people.

Unfortunatly, the goverment as taken on a life of its own, and if you look closely, you'll see that it's primary function is to preserve itself and gain more power. They are deliberatly and systematically making more difficult for the average citizen to participate in governmental affairs, and have his/her voice heard. They are also systematically "dumbing down" the electorate so that they can "lead" us. The governments unwritten mantra is that we are too stupid to rule ourselves, therfore we need a strong centralized government to rule and guide us.

There are many examples of similar governmental dealings, most ending in tragedy. (Nazi's, communists, and several monarchies come to mind). I'm not suggesting that we are slowly turning into Nazi's, but the German people were unfortunatly led by the nose into a very costly war, all because the Nazi party wanted more power.

One of the best ways for a government to protect itself from a civil militia that will curtail it's powers is to remove any way for the civilians to revolt. Thus, we have people who want to take away our guns. They also try to prevent us from "questioning authority".

Gun control is a slippery slope, and without being a doomsayer, has the potential to lead our country into directions we don't want to go.

Erik

robinhood4x4 · « **Reply #18 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 10:38:28 AM »

Quote from: 6.72:1 on Dec 09, 2006, 04:50:09 PM

I heard that.

Wait 'till they get to the South....

My grandmother has a gun. Everybody has a gun in the South.

At one point everybody in California had guns.

At one point, everybody in Austrailia had guns.

At one point, everbody in Britain had guns.

History will repeat itself.

abnormaltoy · « **Reply #19 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 11:04:21 AM »

Quote from: robinhood4x4 on Dec 11, 2006, 10:38:28 AM

At one point everybody in California had guns.

At one point, everybody in Austrailia had guns.

At one point, everbody in Britain had guns.

History will repeat itself.

Not without a fight. Unlike the lobster in the pot story, more and more people are aware of how the left in incrementally destroying our nation. Although we have a significant number of people that have been Oprahfied and base their lives on feelings.

tom w. · « **Reply #20 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 02:25:01 PM »

think about this... if i take a gun and kill somebody, am i really gonna worry about gun laws?

they said it best when they said if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

BLACKDOG · « **Reply #21 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 03:57:04 PM »

Quote from: abnormaltoy on Dec 11, 2006, 11:04:21 AM

Not without a fight. Unlike the lobster in the pot story, more and more people are aware of how the left in incrementally destroying our nation. Although we have a significant number of people that have been Oprahfied and base their lives on feelings.

oh yeah? Well I FEEL safer when I have a gun

red · « **Reply #22 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 07:30:26 PM »

i personally feel that those leading us are corrupt, and removing our rights to have guns is just their latest step to make sure we dont revolt. i wont give up my guns, they can kiss my shiny white ass if they want to take them.

unclejpl4x4 · « **Reply #23 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 07:34:46 PM »

Time for a new goverment

kneedownnate · « **Reply #24 on:** Dec 11, 2006, 08:07:06 PM »

Democrats just wanna strip you of all your posessions and rights so you're completely dependant upon the government. Then they can justify existence.

germ · « **Reply #25 on:** Dec 12, 2006, 12:55:13 PM »

Thought this was interesting....

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061211/D8LUS1100.html

As is this...

Town mulls recommending guns for all By Jon Hurdle
Thu Dec 7, 11:10 AM ET

A tiny town in western Pennsylvania could ask all of its residents to own guns, if a proposal under consideration on Wednesday wins approval from local officials.

Under the proposed law, residents of Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania, would be asked to own guns and know how to use them. Cherry Tree, some 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, has about 400 residents.

The town council was scheduled to vote on the proposed "Civil Protection Ordinance" on Wednesday evening.

Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition."

In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

The measure would send a message to "burglars, ne'er-do-wells and other criminal elements," Statkowski wrote.

The male head of the household has the responsibility to defend the family from intruders, he also wrote.

"I don't believe your wife would appreciate it very much if you said, 'Honey, I'll wait until the police arrive and have them defend your life,'" he wrote.

Statkowski could not be reached for comment.

Chad Ramsey, a spokesman for the national gun-control group the Brady Campaign, dismissed the proposal as "ridiculously silly."

The measure was unlikely to pass because state law prevents municipalities from making their own gun laws, Ramsey said. He said about 40 percent of Pennsylvania households own guns.

Aaron Fry, owner of the Cherry Tree Cafe, said he did not understand why the measure was necessary because guns are common. "Every house has a couple of guns," he said.

Erik

BLACKDOG · « **Reply #26 on:** Dec 12, 2006, 03:25:03 PM »

Quote from: germ on Dec 12, 2006, 12:55:13 PM

Thought this was interesting....

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061211/D8LUS1100.html

As is this...

Town mulls recommending guns for all By Jon Hurdle
Thu Dec 7, 11:10 AM ET

A tiny town in western Pennsylvania could ask all of its residents to own guns, if a proposal under consideration on Wednesday wins approval from local officials.

Under the proposed law, residents of Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania, would be asked to own guns and know how to use them. Cherry Tree, some 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, has about 400 residents.

The town council was scheduled to vote on the proposed "Civil Protection Ordinance" on Wednesday evening.

Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition."

In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

The measure would send a message to "burglars, ne'er-do-wells and other criminal elements," Statkowski wrote.

The male head of the household has the responsibility to defend the family from intruders, he also wrote.

"I don't believe your wife would appreciate it very much if you said, 'Honey, I'll wait until the police arrive and have them defend your life,'" he wrote.

Statkowski could not be reached for comment.

Chad Ramsey, a spokesman for the national gun-control group the Brady Campaign, dismissed the proposal as "ridiculously silly."

The measure was unlikely to pass because state law prevents municipalities from making their own gun laws, Ramsey said. He said about 40 percent of Pennsylvania households own guns.

Aaron Fry, owner of the Cherry Tree Cafe, said he did not understand why the measure was necessary because guns are common. "Every house has a couple of guns," he said.

Erik

sounds good to me!!!

I like the part about the head of household being responsible to defend his family's health and property

glad someone still thinks that!

unclejpl4x4 · « **Reply #27 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 03:07:50 AM »

great anyone been watching the news

Some depresed kid in PA took his daddys AK and shot up the school then him self.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/philadelphia_county/philadelphia/16225883.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_philadelphia

You know there gona blame it on the gun and call for a AK ban. when it's the kids fault he could of done it with any gun.

BLACKDOG · « **Reply #28 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 05:00:33 PM »

Quote from: unclejpl4x4 on Dec 13, 2006, 03:07:50 AM

great anyone been watching the news

Some depresed kid in PA took his daddys AK and shot up the school then him self.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/philadelphia_county/philadelphia/16225883.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_philadelphia

You know there gona blame it on the gun and call for a AK ban. when it's the kids fault he could of done it with any gun.

or they'll blame the school, for not meeting the kids nees

God forbid we take a little responsibility for our own actions huh?

kneedownnate · « **Reply #29 on:** Dec 13, 2006, 06:26:40 PM »

Oh no no, the parents should blame the school and society, because that's the easy way out!

BLACKDOG [OP]

BLACKDOG [OP]

BLACKDOG [OP]

BLACKDOG [OP]

BLACKDOG [OP]

Related Topics