2nd Amendment in Jeopardy? --WashPost article

[csen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401977.html?hpid=topnews

"The District asked the Supreme Court yesterday to save the city's ban on handgun ownership, saying an appeals court's decision overturning the prohibition "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."

If the court agrees to take the case, as most legal experts believe is likely, it could lead to a historic decision sometime next year on whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun or simply imparts a collective, civic right related to maintaining state militias."

I have to say, before really learning Ron Paul's philosophy gun rights were never a big issue to me, but now this really scares me. Hopefully this becomes a big issue in the 2008 campaign -- it can only help us.

[beermotor]

I also agree. I never used to care much, but the more I have read and investigated about things, it is starting to look like this could be a huge problem in the future. I'm just hoping I can get a decent job soon after graduating so I can get some weapons before they become illegal. At least we have a year or so before the traitorous Supreme Court will even render a decision. Maybe they'll all die in a fire before then (except Thomas, he's OK). We should be so lucky!

[LibertyEagle]

I'd be ordering a ton of those 2nd amendment slim jims to pass out, but I live in a quite liberal city.

Whoever can, needs to arm themselves with a ton of these and get themselves to every gun show they can. If anyone is willing to do this, I will help you pay for the Slim Jims and the table at the gun shows

[catwoman]

It's alot easier to turn the country into a police state if the citizens aren't armed. Of course we all know that. Looks to me like one more piece of the puzzle and I fear the puzzle may be fairly close to completion.

I can tell you this, if I had a handgun, they'd have to pry it out of my dead cold hand before I'd turn it over willingly.

How about what was done to the residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The National Guard actually went from house to house and confiscated the guns, handgun and other, from law abiding citizens who were protecting their property from looters.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm telling you folks, we'd better start going after this nomination like it's the last election we'll ever have. Because if Ron Paul doesn't win, I seriously think it might be.

[Givemelibertyor.....]

I think that Gun rights is the best measure of our freedom. People should be scared right now, and try to get active before it's too late.

[bygone]

I would suggest you read this:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

You can also find more information on this topic with a simple google search of "2nd Amendment Supreme Court" with many pages similiar to the one above. I felt that link described the situation well.

From what I can gather the 2A (and for that matter several other amendments) operate legally as restrictions on the federal government; not necessarily as restrictions upon the states. This is by design. If, for example, DC felt that it was necessary to stop the ownership of handguns, or say, fully automatic rifles; it can do this... but congress cannot do this.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Many of these rights that we think are provided for by the Constitution are actually provided for in a very different way than you might think. If, for example, the supreme court were to decide that the 2A protects your ability to own guns, and is binding on the states, then congress could change the Constitution and affect all the states in doing so; this is dangerous ground.

I think the courts interpretation of this issue so far is more or less the safest way to look at the issue. It's a tricky one; and I might be thinking something incorrect here, but I wanted to clarify that at the current time with the way things are seen this is not as drastic as it sounds. There is potential for it to be if the court decides that 2A is binding on the states; then only one thing need be changed to force all states to comply with a complete gun ban.

In my opinion.

I believe this is an important topic.

[blazin_it_alwyz]

Every single one of the original amendments is in jepoardy, every single last one, from freedom of speech, right to arms, right to speedy jury by trial, every single one has been compromised.

If you don't believe me, watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xErcMkpBo8Y

go to 5:41. Scary huh?

[ThePieSwindler]

I don't see whats so vague about the 2nd amendment. A militia is simply an armed citizenry with the capability of combat. It doesn't say in the 2nd amendment anything about states CONTROLLING militias... it simply says that the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed upon so that the citizens may organize, as it is necessary for the security of a FREE state. The first part is simply a qualifier, it doesnt say that it is the only condition where the right to bear arms should exist, it is the main reason why it exists. Liberals and gun control advocates then try to push the view that because it only says militias, we can ban guns. No, it does not say the right to bear arms to form a militia may not be infringed. it simply says that because a militia is necessary to secure freedom (at least it was in the revolution), the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Its really. Not. That. Difficult.

Besides, even under the liberal "definition", if no one has weapons, it will be pretty hard for the state to raise up a militia....

[foofighter20x]

"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've always dissected this sentence like so:


A well regulated militia, being

[1] necessary to the security of a free state,
[2] the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.

Since phrases 1 and 2 are expounding on what a well regulated militia is, and since in 1787 well regulated meant well trained or proficient, then that leaves the intent and meaning of the founders without doubt. They were saying government can't take away your weapons. At all.

[jj111]

It's alot easier to turn the country into a police state if the citizens aren't armed. Of course we all know that. Looks to me like one more piece of the puzzle and I fear the puzzle may be fairly close to completion.

I can tell you this, if I had a handgun, they'd have to pry it out of my dead cold hand before I'd turn it over willingly.

How about what was done to the residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The National Guard actually went from house to house and confiscated the guns, handgun and other, from law abiding citizens who were protecting their property from looters.

I guarantee you, if it's you up against a SWAT team, your hand will be dead and cold.

[klamath]

I would suggest you read this:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

From what I can gather the 2A (and for that matter several other amendments) operate legally as restrictions on the federal government; not necessarily as restrictions upon the states. This is by design. If, for example, DC felt that it was necessary to stop the ownership of handguns, or say, fully automatic rifles; it can do this... but congress cannot do this.
.

Using this logic states can pass laws against free speech or establish state religions.

Lookat the wording of the first amendment.

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

[American]

I guarantee you, if it's you up against a SWAT team, your hand will be dead and cold.

Live free or Die.

Its never a good proposition but I sure like the odds with me owning a gun versus me not owning a gun.

in San Francisco you cant own a Gun at all. Suckers, the perfect target for criminals. Unarmed just waiting to be victims.

[ThePieSwindler]

What happens if you just dont follow a gun ban? Couldnt you take it to court and cite the 2nd amendment and usually win?I mean, what gives them the authority to ban guns at all?

[jj111]

Live free or Die.

Its never a good proposition but I sure like the odds with me owning a gun versus me not owning a gun.

in San Francisco you cant own a Gun at all. Suckers, the perfect target for criminals. Unarmed just waiting to be victims.

I like your odds better with a gun too. In San Francisco, you can own a gun. However, you are restricted. You can't have it loaded in your car or in a public place. At home is fine, at the target range (outside the city) is fine, in california if it's a handgun it is supposed to be registered.....

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, I'm just saying if it's just you against a SWAT team, you can kiss your ass goodbye.

[jj111]

What happens if you just dont follow a gun ban? Couldnt you take it to court and cite the 2nd amendment and usually win?I mean, what gives them the authority to ban guns at all?

You can take anything you want to court, just be aware that the courts are corrupt all over this country.

[catwoman]

Using this logic states can pass laws against free speech or establish state religions.

Lookat the wording of the first amendment.

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

This is very interesting. Let's just talk this thru for a moment.

If a state or district restricted those items rather than congress than in theory the amendment appears to not be violated.

However, does the constitution not also say that the powers not left to the federal government are left for the states?

If so, then the states could not restrict such things as it is clearly stated that is a power or restriction specifically on the federal government side.

Am I making sense here?

[catwoman]

What happens if you just dont follow a gun ban? Couldnt you take it to court and cite the 2nd amendment and usually win?I mean, what gives them the authority to ban guns at all?


The SWAT team as mentioned jj111. Laws, schmaws, court, what's that? They freaking do whatever they want, whenever they want.

In theory you are correct, but reality is much different.

[catwoman]

I guarantee you, if it's you up against a SWAT team, your hand will be dead and cold.


Oh, I'm sure you are correct, but I'm not going to be a slave to them anymore than I already am.

[klamath]

This is very interesting. Let's just talk this thru for a moment.

If a state or district restricted those items rather than congress than in theory the amendment appears to not be violated.

However, does the constitution not also say that the powers not left to the federal government are left for the states?

If so, then the states could not restrict such things as it is clearly stated that is a power or restriction specifically on the federal government side.

Am I making sense here?

I believe that it has generally been ruled except for some vagueness around the 2nd admendment that the bill of rights applies to all government bodies.

[qednick]

You only have to look at the UK to see how their gun ban worked out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2007/02/18/ublview18a.xml

Literally, only the thugs have guns now - as was predicted 10 years ago. There are now more guns in circulation among criminals and gun crime is up 50% since the 1997 ban.

Strange, the UK population has been so spoonfed full of lies about this subject that they're all running around scratching their heads wondering why they have a gun crime epidemic. They have literally run out of things to "ban" in knee-jerk responses because gun ownership is already banned. Guns have been demonized so much by the media there that people don't even consider re-arming because they don't want to be labelled as "gun nuts".

[catwoman]

I believe that it has generally been ruled except for some vagueness around the 2nd admendment that the bill of rights applies to all government bodies.

Seems logical, but to single out one of those amendments (2nd) doesn't make sense. Either they all apply or none apply. Either they are all rights, or none are rights.

[catwoman]

You only have to look at the UK to see how their gun ban worked out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2007/02/18/ublview18a.xml

Literally, only the thugs have guns now - as was predicted 10 years ago. There are now more guns in circulation among criminals and gun crime is up 50% since the 1997 ban.

Strange, the UK population has been so spoonfed full of lies about this subject that they're all running around scratching their heads wondering why they have a gun crime epidemic. They have literally run out of things to "ban" in knee-jerk responses because gun ownership is already banned. Guns have been demonized so much by the media there that people don't even consider re-arming because they don't want to be labelled as "gun nuts".


It is so darn simple though as you know. Criminals don't follow laws anyway, so why on earth would anyone think they'd follow a gun ban. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Again though, that is really not what it's about. It's about getting further control over the citizenry so that the government can take advantage of them. Or so is my opinion.

[qednick]

Actually, they have a newer blog on this issue from this week:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2007/08/27/view27.xml

It's apparently getting so bad that people are tired of it and beginning to realize that the gn ban simply hasn't worked as promised. However, as with all things, once something has been legislated away, it's more difficult to get it re-legalized.

[qednick]

It is so darn simple though as you know. Criminals don't follow laws anyway, so why on earth would anyone think they'd follow a gun ban. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Again though, that is really not what it's about. It's about getting further control over the citizenry so that the government can take advantage of them. Or so is my opinion.

You are absolutely correct - which is why all politicians are so eager to find excuses to disarm the citizenry.

[klamath]

Seems logical, but to single out one of those amendments (2nd) doesn't make sense. Either they all apply or none apply. Either they are all rights, or none are rights.

I agree.

[austin356]

let these statists try to take our guns down here in Alabama, see what happens to the bastards.

[JaylieWoW]

let these statists try to take our guns down here in Alabama, see what happens to the bastards.

RAWR to you!!!

I am also one of those people who has never been around guns at all. Well other than that one time my papaw let me shoot one of his long barrel shotguns he'd made himself.

Even though I don't necessarily want to own a gun, I find myself getting more and more interested in arming myself on a daily basis. I also recognize that as usual, bans on anything never work because criminals never follow the laws, it is only the law abiding citizens (the majority of the population) who suffer under such bans.

[Tn...Andy]

Amazing how "the right of the people" in all other amendments means "THE PEOPLE", but that some could look at the 2nd and say it means a "collective right".

Like the bumper sticker goes.....you'll get mine from my cold dead fingers.....to which I'd add "and the first guy that shows up to get them is in serious do-do"

[Kregener]

I guarantee you, if it's you up against a SWAT team, your hand will be dead and cold.

Not if 7 of your neighbors join in.

Jackboots will become as rare as hens teeth in about 2 days.

[Tn...Andy]

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, I'm just saying if it's just you against a SWAT team, you can kiss your ass goodbye.

You obviously haven't attended a meet up of my .50 cal club.

If SWAT wants to push the issue, there will be plenty of ass on both sides being kissed goodbye.


Who is Carlos Hathcock ?

[CMoore]

let these statists try to take our guns down here in Alabama, see what happens to the bastards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember Ron Paul won the West Alabama straw poll with 81%!!!