How the Second Amendment Was Restored

[CrimsonWhite]

Another good read.

On the last date of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 spring session, justices declared by a 5-4 decision in D.C. v. Heller that, yes, the Second Amendment does secure an individual right to keep and bear arms. With that, the high court voided the District of Columbia’s extreme regulations on gun ownership, which had amounted in practice to a complete ban on any usable weapon for self-protection, even in the home.

In retrospect, D.C. v. Heller seems almost inevitable, because of shifting public and academic attitudes toward gun rights. But victory came only after a protracted struggle, with many pitfalls along the way. It was pulled off by a small gang of philosophically dedicated lawyers—not “gun nuts” in any stereotypical sense, but thoughtful libertarians who believe Second Amendment liberties are a vital part of our free republic. Together they consciously crafted a solid, clean civil rights case to overturn the most onerous and restrictive set of gun regulations in the country. In the process, they set the stage for further legal challenges to other firearms restrictions from coast to coast.

Someone was going to reach the Supreme Court with a challenge to firearms regulation. In the 2001 Fifth Circuit case U.S. v. Emerson, a federal appeals court for the first time declared unequivocally that the Second Amendment, despite containing the word “militia” in its preamble, did indeed protect an individual right to bear arms. Though groundbreaking in the judicial system, that individual rights interpretation was already dominant within the legal academy, after decades of scholarship chipped away at the once-preeminent “collective rights” view that the amendment only protected either a state’s right to maintain a militia, or an individual’s rights within the context of militia service.

How the Second Amendment Was Restored: The inside story of how a gang of libertarian lawyers made constitutional history - Reason Magazine

 

[alan1]

Hey, try this experiment out,
Google this, "Supreme Court: Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms"
It will lead you to here, Supreme Court: Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms - Google Search

Then, just for kicks and grins, click on a few of those provided links.
Notice how many of them fail to actually load.
It's almost as if somebody is trying purge the internet of that SCOTUS decision.
Weird.

 

[Chris]

Hey, try this experiment out,
Google this, "Supreme Court: Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms"
It will lead you to here, Supreme Court: Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms - Google Search

Then, just for kicks and grins, click on a few of those provided links.
Notice how many of them fail to actually load.
It's almost as if somebody is trying purge the internet of that SCOTUS decision.
Weird.

The gun links fail to load?

 

[Skeptik]

this is really a landmark decision. The Second Amendment talks of a "well regulated militia", and the right to "bear arms". It doesn't say a thing about types of arms, just arms.

Now, does the individual have the right to bear any arms? Just where does that right end?

I think the court will revisit this issue.

 

[alan1]

The gun links fail to load?

Well, news articles about the SCOTUS decision do.

 

[Father Time]

Now, does the individual have the right to bear any arms? Just where does that right end?

RPGs? And if not then ballistic missiles.

 

[strollingbones]

the ussc has continually affirmed the 2nd ad rights of americans....only an idiot sees this as something new...as a law abiding american citizen i should be able to have any weapon i can afford. myself..i like flame throwers..

 

[B94]

On the last date of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 spring session, justices declared by a 5-4 decision in D.C. v. Heller that, yes, the Second Amendment does secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The above means that 4 U.S. Supreme Court Judges didn’t agree that the Second Amendment does secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.
These 4 should be removed before they can vote on anything else. Anyone that believes that the Second Amendment doesn’t secure an individual right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to be a judge or hold any political office in our country.

 

[Chris]

The above means that 4 U.S. Supreme Court Judges didn’t agree that the Second Amendment does secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.
These 4 should be removed before they can vote on anything else. Anyone that believes that the Second Amendment doesn’t secure an individual right to keep and bear arms should not be allowed to be a judge or hold any political office in our country.

Guns should be regulated, just like cars, drugs, food, and everything else that can kill you.

 

[pegwinn]

Guns should be regulated, just like cars, drugs, food, and everything else that can kill you.

cars, drugs, food, and everything else that can kill you don't have their own amendment in the constitution ending with "shall not be infringed".

So even though it is anti-constitutional to do so, you have already gotten your wish.

 

[B94]

Guns should be regulated, just like cars, drugs, food, and everything else that can kill you.

Tell that to the criminals!!! I bet they laugh at you.

 

[Father Time]

Guns should be regulated, just like cars, drugs, food, and everything else that can kill you.

Regulated yes, banned no.

Banning creates a black market which is worse than legalization and very few regulations in all those cases (unless if by drugs you mean prescription drugs).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Guns should be regulated, just like cars, drugs, food, and everything else that can kill you.

Yeah, who needs freedom, right?

 

[editec]

Yeah, who needs freedom, right?

Damned right, Kevin.

FREEDOM for all.

Freedom to do what ever you want regardless of outcome.

That's right!

FREEDOM that requires abosoutely no thinking no laws no regulations no government, nothing but the absolute FREEDOM for everyone to do exactly whatever the hell they want.

Anyone who might disagrees in the slightest with me and Kevin is nothing a communist, and not a lover of FREEDOM like you and me, right, amigo?

If you and I want to make anthrax and bombs in our basements who the fuck is our government to object?

We have the second amendment right to own whatever kind of weapons we want, right?

Cause that's real true red, white and blue American FREEDOM!

 

[PeterS]

Hey, try this experiment out,
Google this, "Supreme Court: Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms"
It will lead you to here, Supreme Court: Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms - Google Search

Then, just for kicks and grins, click on a few of those provided links.
Notice how many of them fail to actually load.
It's almost as if somebody is trying purge the internet of that SCOTUS decision.
Weird.

I just clicked the first 6 links and all loaded. I think you are trying to shoot with an unloaded gun...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Damned right, Kevin.

FREEDOM for all.

Freedom to do what ever you want regardless of outcome.

That's right!

FREEDOM that requires abosoutely no thinking no laws no regulations no government, nothing but the absolute FREEDOM for everyone to do exactly whatever the hell they want.

Anyone who might disagrees in the slightest with me and Kevin is nothing a communist, and not a lover of FREEDOM like you and me, right, amigo?

If you and I want to make anthrax and bombs in our basements who the fuck is our government to object?

We have the second amendment right to own whatever kind of weapons we want, right?

Cause that's real true red, white and blue American FREEDOM!

Spreading anthrax and setting off bombs are crimes, not rights. Eating food or doing drugs affects nobody but yourself, so what right does anybody have to tell you what you can do to yourself?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And furthermore, where does the government get the authority to regulate food or drugs? Not the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And furthermore, where does the government get the authority to regulate food or drugs? Not the Constitution.

Yes it does. Food and Drugs are Interstate Commerce, thus covered by the Government.

 

[Skeptik]

Spreading anthrax and setting off bombs are crimes, not rights. Eating food or doing drugs affects nobody but yourself, so what right does anybody have to tell you what you can do to yourself?

But, if you take the Second Amendment to its logical conclusion, and in the light of the recent decision making the right to bear arms an individual right, it should be perfectly legal to own anthrax spores, bombs, missiles, RPGs, or your very own jet fighter, armed with whatever you want.

Somewhere, the matter of what is practical and pragmatic must be applied to the Second Amendment, or anyone can own any arm any time any place. Not even the NRA would support that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But, if you take the Second Amendment to its logical conclusion, and in the light of the recent decision making the right to bear arms an individual right, it should be perfectly legal to own anthrax spores, bombs, missiles, RPGs, or your very own jet fighter, armed with whatever you want.

Somewhere, the matter of what is practical and pragmatic must be applied to the Second Amendment, or anyone can own any arm any time any place. Not even the NRA would support that.

Wrong again. The Second Amendment covers personal weapons and the Constitution forbids strategic weapons even to the States. The only strategic weapons in the 1700's would be the Naval Vessels and States are forbidden to man and maintain their own Navy.