View Full Version : It's on, DC ATTY State 2nd Amendment does not apply
Nathan_Bell
12-11-06, 08:39
The Socialists (whoops Democrats) have yet to be sworn in and a reason to have kept a more conservative, but sadly not all that conservative, Congress arrives.
'"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.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701001.html
Business_Casual
12-11-06, 09:10
Mr. Kim, yours was a very bad law school.
M_P
Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 8:49 PM
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.
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?"
___
The case is: Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041.
© 2006 The Associated Press
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 we know, based on Warren v. District of Columbia, that the Police have no obligation to protect the public and now Mr. Kim is arguing that DC can ban all guns. Effectively rendering it's citizens defenseless from criminals which seem to run around undeterred.
What a joke...
baffle Stack
12-11-06, 16:52
This should get interesting. So is it going to the Supreme Court? I bet it will never make it, but if it does make it there do you have confidence in their judgment? I have confidence it the Supreme Court. I hope it makes it there. It’s plain English. This amendment makes all the others possible. It’s worth repeating,
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.
I don't know mabye the Dems can't read.:cool:
Per the dictionary, a "militia" is....
"The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."
So if they want to argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to the "militia" then by definition it applies to anyone 18 years or older and can pass a PT test.
They can try, but they will fail.
Hell, "regulated" doesn't even mean what the anti's want it to mean.
Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: 're-gy&-"lAt also 'rA-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>
They meant it as a order, methodology or uniformity of the militia. So as to offer an organized resistance to a theoretically tyrannical government.
Pretty simple....
After they ruled in favor of imminent domain for private realtors and developements, they have no standing in my book. They're just another corrupt group of elitists waiting to phuque over this once great country. As for the DC (Dictator Central) rulings; they're paving the way for the other cities to ban self defense. Regardless of the legalities, moral issues, right/wrong, interpretation of the Constitution, DC will ban every firearm from the subjects and then the other states and cities will pounce on the lie and spread the filth of a corrupted law. Ritter, the POS elected gov of Colorado, is just waiting for such an opportunity.
After they ruled in favor of imminent domain for private realtors and developements, they have no standing in my book. They're just another corrupt group of elitists waiting to phuque over this once great country. As for the DC (Dictator Central) rulings; they're paving the way for the other cities to ban self defense. Regardless of the legalities, moral issues, right/wrong, interpretation of the Constitution, DC will ban every firearm from the subjects and then the other states and cities will pounce on the lie and spread the filth of a corrupted law. Ritter, the POS elected gov of Colorado, is just waiting for such an opportunity.
There has been a de facto gun ban in DC since 1976, hence its long standing problems with crime. I included an article on its effect on crime.
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0601.htm
I know I'm preaching to the choir but to me it's amazing that anyone can still claim that any amendment in the BOR can be anything other than an individual right.
The ability to have a "Militia" when needed was only one of the reasons for the RKBA not the the ONLY reason.
If anyone takes the time to read the writings of the founders the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right will be clear. It's only made unclear by dishonest people who don't agree with it.
IMHO, it's fine to disagree with the 2nd but it's wrong to twist it's meaning into something else.
Here's an excellent article about the "Militia" issue...
A Well Regulated Militia?
From and by: Ken kiger@northstate.net
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more 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 in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined 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 Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
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. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was 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 to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in 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" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "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 a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as 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 "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
"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."
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
baffle Stack
12-13-06, 03:54
Enlightening. Thank Yojimbo:cool:
I guess I just need to form a Militia... ;)
that there are other amendments that reference the Second Amendment, that reinforce it as an individual right.
Especially some of the post-Civil War legislation referring to Freedmen very clearly notes that the 2/a is an individual, not a collective, right to self-defense.
Business_Casual
12-13-06, 08:08
The Supreme Court is a federal body, and as such has no interest other than expanding and consolidating federal power. I expect they will either dodge the case or rule against the citizen.
M_P
Submariner
12-13-06, 12:16
The Supreme Court is a federal body, and as such has no interest other than expanding and consolidating federal power. I expect they will either dodge the case or rule against the citizen.
The following is both timely and relevant:
Jefferson Davis
by Charley Reese
Jefferson Davis, one of America's greatest statesmen, said that a question settled by violence would inevitably arise again, though at a different time and in a different form.
And so it has. Lovers and sycophants of the great empire on the Potomac must be feeling uneasy that at least some Americans are again questioning the efficacy of a gargantuan central government.
Perhaps the recent shift of control of Congress to the Democrats has made them nervous, though God knows there are precious few Jeffersonian Democrats in the modern Democratic Party.
And what, you might well ask, is a Jeffersonian Democrat? He's a person who hasn't forgotten that the sovereign states created the federal government, not the reverse, as some today seem to assume. He believes that what the Constitution created was a republic of sovereign states, and that the carefully limited powers assigned to the federal government were all the powers it had, in peace or in war. He believes the Constitution is a binding contract, not a rubbery document that can mean anything a judge or a politician says it means. He believes in a system of checks and balances. In short, he believes in the Declaration of Independence.
That document, you might recall, says that the only purpose of government is to protect rights already granted by God, and that when a government fails to protect those rights and begins to abuse them, the people have the right to alter or overthrow it. "Sounds communistic to me," grumbles old Jack Jingoist. "That guy Jefferson must have been some kind of a pinko."
Why else would Lord Acton, the great British philosopher of liberty, have written to Robert E. Lee, America's greatest soldier, that, "I grieve more for what was lost at Appomattox than I rejoice at what was gained at Waterloo." Lord Acton saw clearly what many American professors of history do not – that the defeat of the South was the end of America's experiment in liberty and self-government and a conscious choice to emulate the central governments of Europe.
H.L. Mencken, the Baltimore journalist, in his usually blunt way said the only thing wrong with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
Davis had said, "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."
On another occasion, he said: "We feel our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of our honor and independence. We ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the states with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms."
A newspaper in New Hampshire said: "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? We must not let the South go."
So to add to the definition of Jeffersonian Democrats, they were a majority of the Founding Fathers, a majority who fought the American Revolution, a majority who wrote the Constitution, and a majority who fought for Southern independence. No wonder the precious few still extant make big-government lovers so nervous.
December 13, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese325.html
What these yellow left-winged socialist democrats (I know I am am not offending anyone on this board with my anti-donkey talk) fail to realize is that you can pass all the laws restricting gun ownership all you want. The only people it will effect is law abiding citizens. Criminals will do whatever they want to do. Laws, especially ones regulating the ownership and sales of firearms, mean nothing to them. However, since criminals make up less than 15% of our population, what the democrats look like they are doing is disarming the good citizens, making it easier to do what they want without worrying about armed militias. The patriots that rose up to fight the tyranny of the English Crown were the militia, armed with civilian weapons, later bolstered by levees from the Continental Congress. All I have to say is when the government comes for my guns, they will get all of my bullets first.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Col. Jeff Cooper
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o135/jnortham/Mallard_Fillmore_unarmedvictims.gif
http://www.three-peaks.net/gun_control.htm
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
Submariner
12-15-06, 19:30
Lt. Col. Cooper erred. Properly stated it should read, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns." Hmm. That may be redundant; he might be right after all.;)
deadwood83
12-16-06, 18:04
What these yellow left-winged socialist democrats (I know I am am not offending anyone on this board with my anti-donkey talk) fail to realize is that you can pass all the laws restricting gun ownership all you want. The only people it will effect is law abiding citizens. Criminals will do whatever they want to do. Laws, especially ones regulating the ownership and sales of firearms, mean nothing to them. However, since criminals make up less than 15% of our population, what the democrats look like they are doing is disarming the good citizens, making it easier to do what they want without worrying about armed militias. The patriots that rose up to fight the tyranny of the English Crown were the militia, armed with civilian weapons, later bolstered by levees from the Continental Congress. All I have to say is when the government comes for my guns, they will get all of my bullets first.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Col. Jeff Cooper
With such obvious truth around, it astounds me how people can push for banning guns and still live with themselves. Maybe they should all decide not to live with themselves...:rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.