DC Lawyers argue gun rights are only for militias

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Dec 7, 2006.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,320
    Thanks Received:
    2,016
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,817
    I doubt this will "shape firearms laws nationwide". The 9th Circus has already declared loudly that the 2nd refers only to militias and collective groups. The 5th Circuit has said just as loudly that it refers to individuals. Now the DC Circuit will probably pick one of those two versions. Either way, it won't be news.

    Only thing of any significance this might do (aside from keeping a few hundred thousand crime victims disarmed before their heavily-armed assailants) might be to get the Supreme Court off its duff at last, and get it to grant cert and rule on the question, possibly re-examining the travesty of US v. Miller in the process. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part.

    An interesting facet here (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is no "state" whose powers might be usurped by a Federal ruling. The District of Columbia is not a "state", nor does it reside within a state. It apparently has a City Council of some kind (correct?). But doesn't Congress itself decide all DC matters that fall outside that city council?

    I wonder if that makes any difference in 2nd amendment jurisprudence?

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

    http://www.wftv.com/politics/10485690/detail.html

    D.C. Argues Gun Rights Only For Militias
    Lawyers Say 2nd Amendment Doesn't Apply To Individuals

    POSTED: 5:33 pm EST December 7, 2006
    UPDATED: 6:01 pm EST December 7, 2006

    WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd 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 2nd 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 high-powered 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 2nd 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 2nd 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?"
     
  2. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    People claiming that the second ammendment doesn't apply to individuals because the word 'militia' is mentioned...despite the other language, such as 'shall not be abridged,' is, to me, comparable to idiots who claim that a light year is a unit of time because the word 'year' is in it.
     
  3. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,225
    Thanks Received:
    7,839
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,789
    And this is exactly why I buy only firearms as a private sale. I don't want the stinking disarm America liberal whack jobs to ever know I own a gun.
     
  4. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,320
    Thanks Received:
    2,016
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,817
    If the 2nd amendment read instead:

    "A well educated Electorate, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

    Those same idiots might try to claim this restricts book ownership only to people with college educations, or maybe to registered voters only. It does not, of course.

    The correct interpretation of the literal words of the actual 2nd amendment, is:

    Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    WHAT guns?:cool:
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    I donno anyone that owns a gun. Do you Gunny?
     
  7. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,225
    Thanks Received:
    7,839
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,789
    :dunno: :smoke: :D
     
  8. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Those are the exact people I want to know that I have guns.

    "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
    Adolf Hitler
     
  9. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    What is a "gun"???
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Forget the gun "training" classes. Here are ten simple rules to follow if you own guns
     

Share This Page