High court ponders scope of amendment on gun rights BY DAVID G. SAVAGE Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” finally had its day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the long-held view that it protects the rights of gun owners appeared poised to win a historic victory. Five justices, a bare majority, signaled they believed the amendment gave individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. It was not limited to arms for “a well-regulated militia” for the common defense, they said. By adopting that view, the justices probably will strike down the nation’s strictest gun-control law, a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he favored a narrow ruling, one that would not cast doubt on an array of gun-control laws. They include a ban on the sale of new machine guns, required background checks for new buyers of handguns and state licensing rules for those who wish to carry a concealed weapon. “I don’t know why when we are starting afresh we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case,” Roberts told one lawyer. The court is indeed “starting afresh” with the Second Amendment, nearly 200 years after it was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights. It says: “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.” Despite this command, the court has never struck down a gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment. For many years, judges believed the amendment merely prohibited the federal government from interfering with the state’s right to maintain a “well-regulated militia.” But most Americans know the second clause, referring to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” And in polls, a large majority say they believe it gives law-abiding persons a right to own a gun. While the court appears ready to agree with them, the chief justice alluded to the difficulty of deciding what kind of right is protected by the Second Amendment. Is the right to own a gun like the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment? If so, most restrictions on that right would be in doubt. Or is the gun right subject to strict regulations by the government? The justices strongly hinted Tuesday they would leave open the question of whether many current restrictions on gun rights will stand. Nonetheless, a ruling recognizing an individual right in the Second Amendment would be a landmark. And it could well signal the beginning of an era in which anti-gun regulations are subject to legal challenges. The case heard by the court Tuesday began when Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who lives in Florida, decided to challenge D.C.’s 30-year-old ban on handguns. One plaintiff, Dick Heller, is a private security guard who wants to keep his handgun at home. Last year, the U.S. appeals court here struck down the D.C. law, prompting the city to appeal the case. Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, defending the city’s law, began by arguing the Constitution’s framers sought to protect state militias. The phrase “bear arms” refers to the “military context,” he said. But he ran into skeptical questioning.
Maybe this will settle the argument that has gone on for years about an individuals right to bear arms. The state, federal, and local governments will still be able to regulate who can get firearms and as long as you're a law abiding citizen, non felon, and mentally competent you'll be able to possess a firearm.
The Bill of Rights is a beautiful document. But how odd is it that out of 10 amendments enumerating individual rights, one amendment should be an exception?
The First Amendment guarantees an individual's right to assemble, speak and worship as he chooses. The Fourth Amendment bars government from searching an individual's home without a warrant. The Fifth Amendment guarantees an individual's right to a fair trial.
But the Second Amendment is a "collective right" that has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's right to protect himself, his property or his community? Strange.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791 Preamble Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Quoted Text
Amendment II 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.
Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
the right of the people to be a militia probably is an assumption by the framers that 'all the people' have the same idea of freedom and would automatically assume the position of a militia in the time of need......this could be construed as 'gang warfare' or vigilantes.....I think it is an assumption that people are sane all the time and of 'right mind'......with deregulation of the 'institutions' and building of more prisons for 'rehab', my bet is we should still keep our guns,,,,,for the enemy within and the enemy without.....who can know the mind of man????
Quoted Text
Main Entry: mi·li·tia Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles Date: 1625 1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
I think they were referring to ALL citizens organized and liable to call(and they were only talking about able body men??ha).....so if all households have their weapons on ready the government wouldn't be responsible to 'hold' them for us.....we would be a country always ready to defend our freedom and our soveriegnty.....the criminals have way too much freedom, here in Schenectady anyhow.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
There's a coma in that sentence of the second amendment meaning that there are two parts to it not necessarily related to each other. 1 the right to form a state militia, 2 the right for an individual to keep and bear arms. IMHO the founders put that clause in the bill of rights so that our nation would never again fall under control of a foreign government or our own because we the people could defend against it. The first step for any government to take over from we the people is to disarm the people and the rest is history. Many of the communist countries that were taken over by Russia were taken over in just that way. An unarmed nation is ripe for the taking or a take over by another armed faction.
Maybe this will settle the argument that has gone on for years about an individuals right to bear arms. The state, federal, and local governments will still be able to regulate who can get firearms and as long as you're a law abiding citizen, non felon, and mentally competent you'll be able to possess a firearm.
Absent strict regulation, an individual right to bear arms has no limit- so your neighbor could set up an anti-aircraft battery in his backyard and you could dig a hole for missile launchers, assuming you can grab them off the black market-
Pilot's gun discharges on US Airways flight 4:15 PM
12:14 PM EDT on Monday, March 24, 2008
CHARLOTTE, N.C.-- A gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally discharged during a flight from Denver to Charlotte Saturday, according to a statement released by the airline
I saw that article on the Drudge Report and the pilot is going to be punished for that mistake. He'll still be answering questions next year at this time. There's no excuse for that to happen that's why they put a safety on all weapons so it can't fire accidentally.
The right to bear arms. Somebody raises a good point. What was around when this was written? Muskets and cannons? I doubt our Founders envisioned automatic assault weapons and no fair minded individual can argue that they need one. Want a handgun or rifle? Fine. But like anything that possesses the potential for dire consequence in the wrong hands, there HAS to be regulation.
In Israel, EVERYONE, men and women alike are required to go into the military for 2 years. They are all trained in every aspect of military combat. And they all own guns. (and unfortunately gas masks as well)
Granted, we do not have the same threats as Israel, but I think I like the concept of a 'united military'
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Fully automatic weapons are illegal to posses unless you have a federal firearms license for one. Should certain weapons be regulated, of course they should. A weapon capable of using a large capacity clip should be licensed just like a pistol is. The problem with the whole theory of regulation is that those that use weapons illegally will never register them and they're the ones who also sell them illegally too. What has to be done is that law enforcement has to enforce the laws already on the books and those that violate the laws need stiffer penalties with more jail time.
The right to bear arms. Somebody raises a good point. What was around when this was written? Muskets and cannons? I doubt our Founders envisioned automatic assault weapons and no fair minded individual can argue that they need one. Want a handgun or rifle? Fine. But like anything that possesses the potential for dire consequence in the wrong hands, there HAS to be regulation.
When cars were manufactured I'm sure the foundersinventors didn't anticipate stereos at 150decibles, cell phones, CD players, DVD players or even seat belts and car seats or even gas at $3.50/gal(or maybe they did know about the gas)......anyone feel safer.....
hey, if it comes down to steak knives, sticks and stones---I'm still in....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
If the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.
I mean it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.
Logged
