Good, they shouldn't. Not until DC has representation in Congress.

Egads. They are going to have to face it sometime...

The suspense is becoming difficult to bear (carry).

The Second Amendment needs no additional interpretation. It expressly says that citizens have the right to bear arms. End of story.

Hand gun, fine. Military guns, NO.

Right to bear arms is in the Constitution. No Government, whether local, state or federal should be able to ban it. Unless, they admend the Constitution.

Having said that,I want handguns to be more pricey. That way, less people can afford it to commit crime. Imagine? If a handgun is $3,000.00. It would deter criminals from getting one.

"A well regulated militia..." should offer some guidance.

John's 2nd Ammendment comment says it all. How can DC say otherwise?

Here is one right specified in The Constitution that Democrats at the national level will not defend. The basic freedom to protect yourself runs contrary to their desire to control us. When they state their intentions they lose votes and are precluded from their end objective.
They know how to spend your money, raise your kids, run businesses, etc. better than you because they have better intentions and they are good.
This is a benchmark issue that should be discussed in the presidential race.

Seems like both sides of the isle have a lot at stake. It is a large national election issue for the party platform(s). The NRA and the conservatives hope the right leaning court will hold on their view.
DEMS hope for a defeat. Seems to me that -More guns equal less crime. Most States now have "right to carry" with extensive training and fees for the licensee. I wish the "Supremes" would finally lay this nebulous issue to rest.

The founding fathers WANTED each and every patriot (hence the name "minuteman")to have their guns at the ready, both individually and collectively so that they could exercise their God given right to protect themselves individually or to be called at a "minutes notice" to help protect their state and country. Any inidvidual that starts by reading the history of "individual protection" as far back as the Magna Carta knows that the Second Ammendment is BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE. The Supremes don't need to touch it at all. doug evans

I've got an aluminum baseball bat under my bed, a hammer and knife under my matress, and Knuckles (my German Shepherd) waiting at the front door. That being said, the minute the government enacts a law to take away my right to own a gun will be the minute I become a gun owner.

ernst dirksen, the 2nd Amendment is more applicable to military rifles than other weapons. Muskets were the military rifles of their time. Respect for the right of citizens to own effective firearms is an important affirmation of liberty in our society. As some have said, a man changes from subject to citizen when he picks up a rifle.

We have the right to bear arms. Period. And I'd like to see them try to amend the Constitution on this one. No guns = crime rate skyrockets. Think about it. If you where a criminal, wouldn't you think twice about robbing a store if you knew that everyone inside also had a firearm? Criminals get guns from the black market, not you're local "Guns'R'Us"

I don't hear a lot of dems talking about gun control. I think the issue is pretty much settled. We (gun lovers) won.

That said the candidate with the strongest anti-gun record is... you guessed it, Rudy Guiliani.

Like I needed another reason not to vote for Rudy.

The price of guns doesn't matter to criminals or terrorists, they steal them, often from the police or military, if they are not supplied by rogue governments, like Iran.
Arms, means handguns, shoulder fired weapons, sporting and military and the 1939 Miller case indicates that.
DC crime increased after the ban, now it may go down when honest citizens get to fight back, the criminals will he more afraid, like they are in states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Lou posted:
"If a handgun is $3,000.00. It would deter criminals from getting one."

You do realize that criminals have been known to steal items, right?

The 2nd Amendment

"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."

Why did the founders start this sentence with a reference to a militia being necessary? If they had just left that part out, leaving just the sentence " the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" , it would be more reasonable to agree with the "happiness is a warm gun" crowd. Unfortunately, they did not and because they did not, this leaves the amendment and it's meaning up to debate.

Another Republcan double-standard?

It's quite clearly an individual right. After all, the Amendment says, "the right of the people to..." and not "the right of the state to...". And there's a good reason for that: only people have rights. The state has powers and responsibilities, but not rights. And the whole idea of the BoR is to guarantee individual rights.

From the previous DC gun ban thread:

It seems the single least pleasing Amendment of the Bill of Rights for "conservatives" is the 9th, which CLEARLY states that the rights laid out in the Constitution are most certainly not the only rights protected by it. That clause is the smoking gun on issues like privacy, which is implied elsewhere but never explicitly stated.

"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."

It is rather amusing that otherwise "strict constructionists" completely ignore the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment to make their case that the people have an UNREGULATED right to bear arms, thus taking essentially a liberal reading of it to insure a conservative outcome.

It should also be noted that the original text of the Bill of Rights capitalizes State, rather than the broader lower-case meaning of the word. As DC is not a "State" in most (but not all) capacities, this provides further intrigue in this case.

Having lived in the District for over a decade, it is past time to bring democracy to the nation's capitol. If DC is a State as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, its time to give us at least one VOTING representative in Congress (note- not 2 senators and a rep).

Posted by: DaVe | November 13, 2007 11:10 AM

It is certainly possible that this case may have done damage to the notion that DC is only a "State" in some areas but not others. That may be one of the reasons it was not taken on, as it would have called into question the District's unique legislative status.

End taxation without representation now.

Those saying that the 2nd Amendment needs no interpretation are arguing that anyone should be able to own any weapon... If you're against individuals owning rocket launchers than you need to admit that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. The question is really where to draw the line, not should there be a line.

You're on the mark, kg123. The first draft of the 2nd amendment, written by James Madison, read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to render military service in person."

On 8/20/1789, a debate occurred that was predictive of conscientious objection. A Mr. Scott claimed, "...for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms." On 8/24 the House passed their version of the 2nd Amendment with the "religiously scrupulous" clause intact.

On 9/9 the Senate moved that, "On the question to concur with the House(OR) on their resolution of the 24th of August proposing amendment to the constitution of the United States..." certain changes be made to the wording, including the striking of the "religiously scrupulous" clause. It then passed the amendment. While no record provides the reasoning behind the Senate's changes, the removal of that clause took away a clear guide to the amendment's purpose.

You're on the mark, kg123. The first draft of the 2nd amendment, written by James Madison, read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to render military service in person."

On 8/20/1789, a debate occurred that was predictive of conscientious objection. A Mr. Scott claimed, "...for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms." On 8/24 the House passed their version of the 2nd Amendment with the "religiously scrupulous" clause intact.

On 9/9 the Senate moved that, "On the question to concur with the House(OR) on their resolution of the 24th of August proposing amendment to the constitution of the United States..." certain changes be made to the wording, including the striking of the "religiously scrupulous" clause. It then passed the amendment. While no record provides the reasoning behind the Senate's changes, the removal of that clause took away a clear guide to the amendment's purpose.

For get it, let the babies have their bottle.

I don't own a gun, and never will.

But if people want to put their families at risk by having a gun present in their home, fine.

And if it makes some people feel more like a man to blow bambi's head off every once in a while. Go right ahead. I won't try to stop you.

They don't even understand the 2nd amendment part about guns being "regulated" anyway. So what's the use. You can't get the dangers of guns through their thick skulls anyway.

For the gentleman who wrote," "A well regulated militia..." should offer some guidance." I quote the following, hand written on the copy of the Bill of Rights hanging in the National Archives.

"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."

It's common for people like you to only quote the part that makes your point.
"...the right of the People..." are the same people of the rest of the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. The People ARE the Militia...

The Below URL offers a very candid explanation of the Language of the time and people have misused the first line of Amendment.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1095e.asp

"...the right of the People..." are the same people of the rest of the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. The People ARE the Militia...

Posted by: Ben T. Essery | November 13, 2007 1:42 PM

Are they a "well regulated militia"?

Not hardly.

I'd have no problem with gun ownership if gun owners were required to turn out for training and drill like a
well regulated militia".

AJF, DaVe, and other gun-control proponents:

Go read my response to your posts in the other thread. I have answered your claims.

Kudos to those of you who understand what the phrase "the right of the People" means throughout the Bill of Rights.

Pardon the intrusion from a foreign dude (if only by a few miles). In my opinion, NOTHING in the statement "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." forbids a government from defining what, exactly, "arms" means. For heaven's sake, anybody with a 36 inch chunk of sharpened steel (that's a sword for the uninitiated) is well armed indeed!

I think this is a good idea, but band all guns in Washington including those issued to all law enforcement, capitol police , secret servied personal body gards every gun and see how fast the Dems get of DC. because then they would have to live in fear like they want the citizins to do now.

For those of you that are in favor of gun ownership, I propose the government gives you all a muskeat to protect yourself. This should be sufficient to statisfy your need for gun ownership and still abide by the second amendment.

John W,

I read you previous thread. You either miss the point or need a refresher course in basic english.

The phrase “the right of the people.." is most certainly "collective", not "individual".

Why? Because people is plurlal. If the founding fathers meant these to be individual, why didn't they write it, "The right of 'each person' to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."?

I am a person, the nation as a whole are people. See the difference?

Dave, I'm against flabby people exercising their right to bare arms in public during summertime. It hurts my eyes.

"An armed populace is the last line of defense against an oppressive government." What is one of the first things a dictator does when he seizes power? Confiscate private means of self-defense so only his cronies have weapons. The right to self-defense is one of the most basic of all rights. Originally, the Founders argued AGAINST a Bill of Rights under the assumption that where no powers were given, no authority existed to interfere. Since no power is given anywhere outside the Bill of Rights for government to regulate private ownership of weapons, it follows that no power exists. The Bill of Rights was only added to allay the fears of some who wanted to guard as much as they could against government usurptions of power. They then added the 9th and 10th amendments to make it clear that the Bill of Rights was not all inclusive, and that the government was LIMITED to only the powers it was expressly given. There can be no doubt whatsoever that 75% of what the government currently does is unconstitutional, and that no power is granted to the government to restrict the right of private citizens to own weapons. The Revolutionary War itself would have been impossible to fight if the people did not at the time own weapons. Case closed.

* * * * *

Posted by: David J | November 13, 2007 4:11 PM

So, your theory is that the phrase “the right of the people" is "collective" and not "individual" because “people” is “plural.” And you also suggest that, between the two of us, I am the one who needs “a refresher course in basic english. (sic.)?”

Guess again. Your understanding of the phrase is one possible interpretation of the phrase “the right of the people,” but, by no means is it the only interpretation. It is perfectly acceptable to identify an individual right using the phrase “the right of the people” if, by this, one conveys the idea that a right belongs to all of “the people,” albeit individually. That, as a matter of fact, is exactly what the courts have done.

As an example of this, I submit for your consideration (again) the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, like the Second Amendment, is couched in terms of "the right of the people." Thus, if you are correct that rights of “the people” refer only to collective rights, then no reason would exist to interpret the Fourth Amendment as embodying any personal rights. After all, it would take poor English comprehension to read it that way; now wouldn’t it?

Well, then, you had better explain that to the United States Supreme Court. It has consistently held, contrary to your understanding, that the Fourth Amendment protects “‘personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.’” (See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 134-35 (1978), and cases collected there.) The same analysis applies to other rights of “the People” such as the rights to peaceably assemble or petition for redress under the First Amendment, as well as all the other rights reserved under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Those, too, have been held to be individual and personal rights although protected by the Constitution as rights “of the people.” (See De Jong v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365-67 (1937) [First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble” prohibits individual defendant’s conviction based on group membership.]; and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-54 (1973) [“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”].)

So much for your idea that rights “of the people” under the Constitution are, of necessity, only “collective rights.” Huh?

In any event, you appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that the Second Amendment actually created the right to keep and bear arms and, therefore, defines the scope of the right. But the Second Amendment didn’t create any rights. When added as an Amendment, it only protected the existing right to keep and bear arms from encroachment by the federal government. (See U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). Furthermore, the pre-existing right “to keep and bear arms” at common law was a personal right and not a collective, right. According to William Blackstone, the right of “personal security” under the common law embraced the right of every Englishman to defend his life and limb; and, as auxiliary to that right, to have weapons suitable to defend himself. (1 Wm. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, at pp. 128-130, 143-144 (London 1825).) As a source for that right, Blackstone cites 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2., which, of course, was the law adopting the English Bill of Rights of 1688. Thus, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, as protected against abridgment by the Second Amendment, was and is a personal right.

David, I suggest in the future you be a little kinder to people when suggesting supplementary educational assistance for them. You just might be communicating with someone who knows a thing or two more than you do about a given subject – like this time.

The second amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, then why can't felons own guns. The fight has been lost. Why continue with it? When was the last time that anyone was in a militia? We have the military, something we didnt have in 1780's when the amendment was written. WE DO NOT NEED guns. Period!

* * * * *

WE DO NOT NEED guns. Period!

Posted by: will | November 14, 2007 8:23 PM

Correction. You think you don't need guns. Don’t attempt to speak for anyone else. We don’t agree with you.

You apparently don't know anyone who had to defended himself with a gun against an attacker or intruder. I do. The need and occasion for such defense measures occur all too often to ignore. The MSM doesn’t tell us when people successfully defend themselves, even though it happens quite often. Nor does it tell us the kind of serious damage that was avoided by the use of firearms. They don’t tell us any of this because they want us to believe – like you do – that we don’t need firearms to defend ourselves, and that only bad things can happen if we possess them. Congratulations, you’ve been duped.

What the MSM also fails to tell you is that the police can’t protect you, and that they don’t even have a duty to defend you in particular. Their duty is to the community “in general,” in which case you are SOL if they happen to be too busy. Of all the years I spent practicing law, and of all the endless hours I spent reading police reports, I can guarantee you that I never saw a single case where a robber, rapist or murderer was caught in the act by the police. The normal scenario involved the police showing up just in time to see the victim leave for the hospital – or the morgue – and for them to take a report from witnesses.

The truth is that an intelligently armed public is a safe public. It is also true that an unarmed public is fodder for criminals. Just look at the dramatic rise in the number of daytime burglaries in Canada and Australia after they implemented strict gun control measures. Heck, you don’t even have to look that far. Look at the yearly shooting statistics in Chicago and D.C. (before the law was struck down). Gun control never stopped crime or violence because criminals get their firearms on the black market. It is estimated that 4 out of every 5 firearms used in a crime in Chicago were acquired that way.

So, if you don’t want guns, fine, don’t own one. Nobody is forcing you to own one. I’d even invite you to put up a sign on your door or lawn that declares your home to be a “Gun Free Zone.” But don’t try to put everyone else at risk of harm by advocating that we do away with firearm possession.

Oh, and will: felons can’t possess firearms because it is too dangerous to let them have guns. The Second Amendment wasn’t intended to permit criminals to ply their trade. Since no constitutional right so absolute that it can’t be lost by abuse, it is perfectly fine to deprive felons of the right to possess firearms.