Supreme Court to uphold the 2nd Amendment?

[TruthAtLast]

U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus19mar19,0,2685078.story

[nate895]

U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus19mar19,0,2685078.story

Dang, I was hoping Montana would secede because they didn't.

[WilliamC]

Buys us some breathing room for a while.

As long as the average American can keep guns for self-defense then the chances of a really bad scenario are much lower.

I really need to be looking at buying some self-defense for my home...

[CurtisLow]

Dang, I was hoping Montana would secede because they didn't.

Maybe that's why they didnt..?

[nate895]

Maybe that's why they didnt..?

Well, I suppose that validates secession too.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Ex Post Facto]

I listened to the entire argument. At an hour and 30 minutes one of the justices made a joke about combination trigger locks, stating "So to fire the gun I have to wake up, turn on the light, and grab my reading glasses?" The whole room filled with laughter.

[runderwo]

Why does no one ask -- regardless of your opinion of natural rights or what the 2nd Amendment says or doesn't say -- where any power to regulate guns is contrived from the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8?

[nate895]

Why does no one ask -- regardless of your opinion of natural rights or what the 2nd Amendment says or doesn't say -- where any power to regulate guns is contrived from the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8?

DC made the handgun ban, therefore it doesn't have to be in Article 1, Section 8.

[humanic]

More Gun Control, More Crime
http://www.haciendapub.com/humeven1.html

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_34/ai_93090050

Gun Control Means More Crime
http://www.populistamerica.com/gun_control_means_more_crime

Why are We Tolerating this Madeness?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter119.htm

[scandinaviany3]

does sound like 2nd ammendment not challenged...maybe the courts are not as corrupted as the other branches for now.

[dbhohio47]

It seems to me that a smart, liberty-minded spokesman, lobbying on behalf of individual ownership 2nd Amendment rights, could use this opportunity to point out some other transgressions of our liberties of late while the SC is hearing this case and get some national press out of the situation. (just some food for thought for the well-connected among us).

[seapilot]

Does this mean in D.C. the criminals have a reason to be afraid again? Poor criminals, they used to be safe as they were the only ones allowed by law to carry.

[pinkmandy]

Buys us some breathing room for a while.

As long as the average American can keep guns for self-defense then the chances of a really bad scenario are much lower.

I really need to be looking at buying some self-defense for my home...


My thoughts, too. It's encouraging for those of us who are on the edge of our seats. A little breathing room is a great thing to have. :D

[runderwo]

DC made the handgun ban, therefore it doesn't have to be in Article 1, Section 8.

There are several federal gun control laws. While the DC ban is strictly a rights question, there are several glaring powers questions that remain.

[Alawn]

I am still afraid. I have the feeling they will say everybody has a right but leave the door open for tons and tons of restrictions as long as some moron in government thinks it is "reasonable". They will claim it is some victory for gun rights but will allow the slow erosion of the 2nd amendment as they start to call more and more restrictions reasonable.

[dude58677]

I am still afraid. I have the feeling they will say everybody has a right but leave the door open for tons and tons of restrictions as long as some moron in government thinks it is "reasonable". They will claim it is some victory for gun rights but will allow the slow erosion of the 2nd amendment as they start to call more and more restrictions reasonable.


Nah, with the gun bans ending things can only get better. A gun ban is clearly unreasonable.

[hillertexas]

I listened to the recording as well. When the female justice asked "With all of the crime in DC, why is it unreasonable to have a handgun ban?" I wish someone would have said "because criminals do not obey the law, thus gun control laws only restrict the law abiding citizen."

[PatriotG]

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

[Alawn]

Nah, with the gun bans ending things can only get better. A gun ban is clearly unreasonable.

The Supreme Court is rarely reasonable. I have read a ton of cases and a lot of them make me want to puke.

It is going to be really bad. They will claim it as some sort of victory but it will be a loss. They will say you have a right but you can reasonably restrict it. This is exactly how warrantless searches and free speech zones came about. One example is that it will be ok to require a permit for guns then they just wont ever issue the permits. The 2nd Amendment means no restrictions at all no matter what or how reasonable it seems at the time.

[Deborah K]

I am still afraid. I have the feeling they will say everybody has a right but leave the door open for tons and tons of restrictions as long as some moron in government thinks it is "reasonable". They will claim it is some victory for gun rights but will allow the slow erosion of the 2nd amendment as they start to call more and more restrictions reasonable.

True that. I live in Cali. It's next to impossible to get a concealed weapon license and they put you through the ringer just to buy a hand gun. Thirty day wait, etc. It's legal here to carry an exposed side arm but try doing it in public and see what happens. We already live in a police state here and it's called Kaliphornia.

[JTCoyoté]

U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus19mar19,0,2685078.story

Well this is all well and good... but the gist of the thing, after listening to the arguments 3 times... my view is that the Second Amendment has now been changed... In June, the 2nd amendment will be dead by interpretation-- dropped to the level of the government granted privilege that the British labor under...

The protections of the pre existing right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property in all cases whatsoever, that has stood for over 200 years has now fallen under the sword of tyranny...

The Protection is no longer:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...it has been changed, the new second amendment will read:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except as prescribed by law."

I suggest that all listen to the 3 hour analysis including that of Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America today on www.infowars.com/ , it is live now and will be web cast every three hours until tomorrow morning...

Government having the power to "restrict" is the power to infringe!

JTCoyoté

"The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion,
otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword,
if the fort is taken -- I have answered the demand
with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly
from the walls -- I shall never surrender or retreat.
~William Barret Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt.,
Alamo-Bejar, Feby. 24th, 1836

[Deborah K]

The Protection is no longer:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...it has been changed, the new second amendment will read:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except as prescribed by law."



This has been the case ever since they forced us to get permits in order to own guns and to register our guns..... only now the people are finally starting to wake up.

[pcosmar]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be allowed, only as prescribed by law."
Fixed it for you.

[liberteebell]

A good set of Supremes would have just thrown the whole thing out and the only discussion would have been, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' does DC not understand?".

The 2nd Amendment is clear as written and not open to interpretation.

[Mr. White]

As much as I despise the notion and think it's an individual right that should not be infringed, I understand the need to analyze the entire amendment as it is written.

[runderwo]

As much as I despise the notion and think it's an individual right that should not be infringed, I understand the need to analyze the entire amendment as it is written.

Why? The right exists independent of the 2nd Amendment. Read the 9th.

[JTCoyoté]

It is time for all of us to send to the court millions of copies of Dr. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime"...

The dem/rep 'globies' need to know that we will not roll over for any "legalized" gun grabbing shenanigans...

But you see, they need crime, much more crime, in order to build their fricking police state!

We must rally together to stop the court from weakening the 2nd Amendment further, like was done in '39 by US v Miller...

Speaking as a member of Gun Owners For Ron Paul, this Revolution has the organization and the numbers to bring the voice of the people to bear on the court. Dr. Lott's book shows in graphic relief that gun restrictions actually increase the crime rate... If we flood the court with cogent letters with 2nd Amendment quotes by the Founders, and the many studies that prove the solidity of the Second Amendment in it's original intent and interpretation, we may force the court to restore and sustain it as the Keystone of Liberty it is.

we have three months...

--Oldyoti

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;
it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant
and a fearful master... Firearms are second
only to the Constitution in importance;
they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth."
~George Washington

[JTCoyoté]

As much as I despise the notion and think it's an individual right that should not be infringed, I understand the need to analyze the entire amendment as it is written.

The Second Amendment was the most labored over Amendment of the lot... the word "regulated" as it was understood in 1789 was used because each of it's several meanings fit within the context of the Amendment and could not be misconstrued...

The Militia Clauses in Article 1 section 8 clauses 15 and 16, only set the standard for the training and hierarchy... the weaponry is not addressed beyond the word "arming", and only for that part of the militia that is "called" to service by the Government... The Second Amendment modifies this and insures that the people, the whole of the Militia, "shall" be equally "regulated" in arms and training...

The aspect of the Militia portion of the Amendment that is glossed over is the word 'regulated'... which not only has the meaning of being well drilled or controlled, but also denotes that the militia should be on par with the "standing" military of the day... in other words an individual needs to be on par in armament and skill with his government "called" counterpart, or a soldier of the enemy...

The argument that usually follows this is, "well then they could have nuclear weapons then, or missiles...?" This is a shill argument to cheapen the necessity of the parity between soldiers... as individuals. No individual soldier of our standing army, carries nukes or missiles or tanks.

The original intent of the word "infringed" is what needs to be looked at closely by the Court... it is a word that prohibits modification and/or restriction and is stated emphatically as the last word of the amendment...

We shall soon see who are the TRUE Americans on this court, now won't we!

Like I said before, we need to flood the Court with as much in the way of facts from the founders and arguments showing original intent as possible... We Ron Paul Folks need to get on the Second Amendment band wagon and put the power of the Ron Paul Revolution machine to bear on the Supreme Court... NOW...

--Oldyoti

The NRA, behind the scenes, has brokered, compromised,
and then endorsed every major anti Second Amendment
federal law passed for the last 30 years...
C.E. Lovell, NRA Board Member 1980-93

[Banana]

JTCoyote, if you are correct, it would then follow that we are supposed to have a mandatory national service ala Swiss Guards and Israel Defense Force, no?

[mopar.bo]

All this discussion, for what? Can you honestly tell me that you'd hand over your arms if (when) the government demands it?

The day guns are outlawed is the day yours truly becomes an outlaw.

[JTCoyoté]

JTCoyote, if you are correct, it would then follow that we are supposed to have a mandatory national service ala Swiss Guards and Israel Defense Force, no?

No... There is nothing mandatory in a pre existing right held by the people... those who seek it will... so, that right which is pre-existing, cannot be denied by government to anyone including those who seek it... which are many, by the way.

Coyoté

"Before a standing army can rule, the people
must be disarmed; as they are in almost every
kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because
the whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any bands of regular
troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the
United States"
~Noah Webster

[GunnyFreedom]

does sound like 2nd ammendment not challenged...maybe the courts are not as corrupted as the other branches for now.

Well, the beauty of the Supreme Court is, there is no higher court and it's a life appointment. There are no politicians or special interests to be beholden to. It was designed from the beginning to be the very last piece of government that can possibly be corrupted.

Of course, that does not insulate the Justices from all the corruption in the processes leading TO the Supreme Court, nor does it stop them from having to be 'liked by the President' in order to get the appointment. But from a 'function of government' perspective, the USSC is supposed to be the last line of defense from power grabs of the Legislature or the Executive branches.

USSC appointments were the pivotal reason I held my nose and voted GWB in the 2000 primary. I thought about who Gore was likely to appoint, and who Bush was likely to appoint, and figured the election was a wash, but at least I could try to push the USSC more conservative.

[JTCoyoté]

All this discussion, for what? Can you honestly tell me that you'd hand over your arms if (when) the government demands it?

The day guns are outlawed is the day yours truly becomes an outlaw.

There are at least 100 million firearms owners in this country that share your sentiments, and that is more than enough to make the government think twice... we need now to convince the Supreme Court to side with the free people of this nation, and not the gun grabbing globalist elitist tyrants who seek to disarm the law abiding citizens of this great land to their nefarious ends... Your letter to the court will be forth coming I trust...

Coyoté

"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man,
which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the
public safety. A people can never be deprived of
their liberties, while they retain in their own hands,
a power sufficient to any other power in the state."
~Noah Webster

[GunnyFreedom]

Well this is all well and good... but the gist of the thing, after listening to the arguments 3 times... my view is that the Second Amendment has now been changed... In June, the 2nd amendment will be dead by interpretation-- dropped to the level of the government granted privilege that the British labor under...

The protections of the pre existing right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property in all cases whatsoever, that has stood for over 200 years has now fallen under the sword of tyranny...

The Protection is no longer:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...it has been changed, the new second amendment will read:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except as prescribed by law."

I suggest that all listen to the 3 hour analysis including that of Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America today on www.infowars.com/ , it is live now and will be web cast every three hours until tomorrow morning...

Government having the power to "restrict" is the power to infringe!

JTCoyoté

"The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion,
otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword,
if the fort is taken -- I have answered the demand
with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly
from the walls -- I shall never surrender or retreat.
~William Barret Travis, Lt. Col. Comdt.,
Alamo-Bejar, Feby. 24th, 1836

Um, you may be right, or you may be wrong. How about let's try waiting until we see the actual DECISION before considering what it means to Liberty and the 2nd A. ?

All we have heard thus far are the arguments. I myself was unhappy to see that the 'purpose of the militia' argument was not brought up, regarding what kinds of arms are "reasonable." The gentleman stating that 'machine guns should be reasonable' should have made the point that the only purpose of the militia is to overthrow tyranny, therefore the militia must have access of arms equal to any tyranny they are likely to fight.

I actually believe that the first clause modifies the second clause, in order to declare the kinds of arms the people are expected to keep and bear, that being the equivalent of any tyranny they might expect to face, and thus being well-equipped when they need to be called to duty as a militia again to overthrow a tyranny.

But the question was NOT raised, sadly, and therefore that decision will have to wait for another day. In the final analysis, you can almost NEVER tell what the USSC will decide from the deliberations. Be happy that they chose to send a message in their deliberations at least that they will work to protect the INDIVIDUAL's right to bear arms, and not to consider it a collective right.

[JTCoyoté]

Well, the beauty of the Supreme Court is, there is no higher court and it's a life appointment. There are no politicians or special interests to be beholden to. It was designed from the beginning to be the very last piece of government that can possibly be corrupted.

Of course, that does not insulate the Justices from all the corruption in the processes leading TO the Supreme Court, nor does it stop them from having to be 'liked by the President' in order to get the appointment. But from a 'function of government' perspective, the USSC is supposed to be the last line of defense from power grabs of the Legislature or the Executive branches.

USSC appointments were the pivotal reason I held my nose and voted GWB in the 2000 primary. I thought about who Gore was likely to appoint, and who Bush was likely to appoint, and figured the election was a wash, but at least I could try to push the USSC more conservative.

Wait and see means wait and weep... How about we exercise our right to influence the court... you know the right... don't you?

There are only two higher powers than the supreme court... one is that which gave the power and thus created the Court in the first place. You will find that power in the first three words of the Constitution...We the People. The highest power is that power which brought forth life in the first place...

I hope that your letter to the Court will be as eloquent as your post... in light of the facts stated here...

JTCoyoté

"A government that is large enough to supply everything you need
is large enough to take everything you have."
~Thomas Jefferson

[GunnyFreedom]

I would write a letter to the USSC if I thought it would have any impact. they only read amicus briefs, which I do not have the standing to author and file. And in order to hire a lawyer with the standing to file an amicus brief to the USSC would cost me thousands and thousands of dollars that I do not have.

And I can phrase the argument above in the manner of an amicus brief and take a legal argument cogently from open to close, but I am absolutely certain that the USSC will never read an ordinary letter in the consideration of a case when the proper venue for informing the court is via amicus briefs.

[JTCoyoté]

I would write a letter to the USSC if I thought it would have any impact. they only read amicus briefs, which I do not have the standing to author and file. And in order to hire a lawyer with the standing to file an amicus brief to the USSC would cost me thousands and thousands of dollars that I do not have.

And I can phrase the argument above in the manner of an amicus brief and take a legal argument cogently from open to close, but I am absolutely certain that the USSC will never read an ordinary letter in the consideration of a case when the proper venue for informing the court is via amicus briefs.

Then I suggest you do get your money together... the rest of us will flood the Court with our letters based upon the literal truth of the contract we made to create the Court to protect our pre-existing rights... the very court under which you dutifully prostrate...

I fancy that several hundred thousand letters from the People in the vein I suggest... will carry more weight however.

Coyoté

"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man,
which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the
public safety. A people can never be deprived of
their liberties, while they retain in their own hands,
a power sufficient to any other power in the state."
~Noah Webster

[JTCoyoté]

Then I suggest you do get your money together... the rest of us will flood the Court with our letters based upon the literal truth of the contract we made to create the Court to protect our pre-existing rights... the very court under which you dutifully prostrate...

I fancy that several hundred thousand letters from the People in the vein I suggest... will carry more weight however.

Coyoté

"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man,
which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the
public safety. A people can never be deprived of
their liberties, while they retain in their own hands,
a power sufficient to any other power in the state."
~Noah Webster

For those who still have the idea that the Second Amendment is a Collective right, Here is the last portion of U.S. v Miller that the gun grabbers avoid like the plague... here inlies the intent of the court...


Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. Reports 154 (1840)
cited in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

From the summery:
"The right of civilians in a free society to possess "military-
looking," or even actual military weapons, is essential if a
monopoly of force is not to reside in the hands of government,
where modern history shows the potential for far greater abuses
and crimes exists than are possible for any deranged individual.
Every major genocide in the twentieth century has been preceded
by laws which disarmed the eventual victims of their ability to
resist the progressive imposition of murderous tyranny. Once
granted a monopoly of force, government acquires power that cannot
be readily opposed or revoked. And, if government fails to act,
as in time of natural disaster or a riot, the ability to defend
against roving gangs or to deter looting requires a dependable,
versatile, and credible deterrent to whatever threat may appear,
and possibly even a means to obtain small game for survival.
Or, if government is too far away to act quickly, for instance
in remote rural areas, or miles from shore out to sea, people
faced with attack by packs of wild animals, human predators,
or hijacking pirates must be able to respond with all neccessary
force, in order to preserve their lives from harm.
Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that weapons having no
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia" may be taxed in interstate commerce,
clearly implying that weapons having such reasonable relationship
with the militia are those which the Second Amendment protects
the right of the people to keep and bear, moreso even than other
types of weapons. In other words, the arms protected by the
Second Amendment are those "such as are usually employed in
civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military
equipment."

--Oldyoti

"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself."
~Thomas Paine