See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Scope Of 2nd Amendment's Right To Bear Arms Questioned
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio ... 110AP_Gun_Ban.html?source=mypi
Published: Dec 7, 2006
Author: MATT APUZZO
Post Date: 2006-12-07 16:37:27 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 83
Comments: 4
WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals. The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional. At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." 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 high-powered 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 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons. "Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century." 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Ignorant Fascists. That's all I can say. We have much work to do before we are chained and disarmed and the outcome to struggle will be failure. Now is the time to stop it.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell
From The Series, by Richard David Gould: As a further explanation, let me add here what the people of the 1790s understood very well; the Second Amendment (thank you, Ken): Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is an "AMENDMENT". (Actually, the Second Amendment is an ARTICLE; not an Amendment. The Bill of Rights has it’s own Preamble, and stands as a separate document. However, what is being said here is correct, as far as the meaning of the “changes in intent” accomplished by the Second Article of the Bill of Rights. The Articles of the Bill of Rights did not change the wording “within” the Constitution, but they did clarify and, in this case in particular, add absolute prohibitions to the Constitution. – David) None of the "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution (commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights) stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be knowledge to any American claiming patriot status that the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was decided that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitution’s) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791. (The Constitution was not officially “adopted” by the states until the Bill of Rights was presented, and both were adopted at the same time. The Constitution was not in force prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and this is why George Washington did not take office prior to this. – David) In this Light: "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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA." The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers." What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States? To answer this one must first understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. One popular definition used was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was (and is) every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment . "Militia" as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in the original Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: "To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: "To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" still out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution? If so, obey your commander: Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers Clinton: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED." The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by "restrictive clauses." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED?" By demanding that the Second Amendment be added to the original Constitution providing: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA!" Now the brightness of the Light may require sunglasses: "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."
The Solution is to apply, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Constitution to Washington, D.C.
What part of "the right to bear arms" does this asshat NOT UNDERSTAND????? UNCONSTITUTIONAL????? Wonder what he thinks of rope???? I think he needs to get a good up-close and personal "feel" for a little rope!!!! Looks like Mr Kim needs a little lesson in what a well-tied knot feels like too.. Then these motherfuckers might have a little more "appreciation" for the "speed" of a bullet!!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Who is "we" ? (Gotta mouse in his pocket ? ) So let me see if I got it right ... Some Korean "solicitor" in D.C. [that ten square mile area ] is gonna assume authority to deny every American the right to defend themselves and their families. He's entitled to his opinion ... however, I think the gun issue is "the" line in the sand.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#2. To: IndieTX, Brian S, all (#1)
the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias
#3. To: Brian S, Indie TX, Lodwick, BTP Holdings, Noone222 (#0)
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.
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest