SCotUS takes up DC gun ban case!

[RetiredGySgt]

As to State's rights...

Before the 14th Amendment it was universally accepted that the Federal Constitution applied to FEDERAL authority only. States were not effected by it outside the very specific powers granted by section 8 article 1.

After the 14th that began to change. Now it is generally accepted that the Federal Constitutions Bill of Rights and other Amendments apply with in the States also. That they are individual not just Federal.

The 2nd Amendment has largely been ignored in this process and of course the argument it is a collective not a individual right has muddied the water as well.

So in answer to the question about whether it is a State's rights issue, it is not, if one uses the last 150 years rulings on what the 14th changed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless RGS is right about Congress having authority over DC, this SHOULD be a state perogative. State's rights?

The 14th amendment applies the protections og the bill of rights to state actions. Therefore, there's no 10th amendment issue here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What constitutes an arm – a bazooka, a tank, landmines? Should anyone be allowed to own as many unmarked fully automatic machine guns as he likes – and without a background check?

Please see my blog.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have a question about your signature ...
Can I have one?

Sure you can!!

Mine is a little expensive for most people, however. Even a base model M1A runsd about $1100.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court ruled in 39 that a weapon MUST be one used by or useful to the military to be covered by the 2nd amendment. A sawed off shutgun, they ruled had no useful value to the military based on the fact the military never used them.

That's not exactly what they said. They said that it was not "within judicial notice", mening no evidence had been presented to that effect.

As we all know, shotguns have been used by the military for some time, including today; I dont see how the fact that one was cut down would affect this.

 

[jillian]

Not to nit-pick or be argumentative (I mean, it's obvious we're on the same side w.r.t. this particular issue) but I wouldn't write the D.C. ban off as "asinine." I would call it "unconstitutional." There is simply no other way to desribe a law that bars law-abiding American citizens from owning ALL handguns and ALL functional longarms.

I have a question... I've been reading this thread and perhaps you or one of the others can answer it for me. I read where some think a ban on certain weapons in government-controlled areas is ok, but wouldn't be in other areas. That doesn't really make much sense to me. It seems to me that if the purpose of the second amendment is to allow one to rise up against a tyrannical government (which is the position of some) that the government would be exactly the entity that COULDN'T restrict possession on their premises (since that's what you'd need for a real uprising -- not that I'm condoning one). It also seems that the one crime the founders saw fit to set forth in the Constitution is treason (and certainly any uprising against the government would be, by definition, treasonous). It, therefore, seems to me that the 2nd provides for gun ownership for use in SUPPORT of the government.... which fits with the organized militia provisions of the second.

Remembering that at the time the Constitution was ratified, the colonial armies had provided their own weapons, isn't this really what the second amendment referred to? Being that the situation has changed, and military personnel are provided with weapons by the government, wouldn't that make the second amendment almost meaningless for today's purposes?

Remember, I have no horse in this race, I'm just making the analysis.

Also, is that your pic in your avatar?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As with all rights, there are limits. Reasonable limits are not bad. The Government property issue is difficult because DC has people OWNING property there, but it may still be valid, at the very least it muddies the water.

Restriction private arms on a Military base, a military reservation, a National park, A Federal Court house , Federal Property is a reasonable restriction.

As to the collective versus Individual right. Name any other Amendment or right provided in the Constitution where the word "the people' has NOT been conscrued to mean an INDIVIDUAL right.

The 2nd Amendment provides two protections. One is the right of the State to have a Militia, the second is the right of the people to own and possess weapons.

Research the Bill of rights, you will find that close to 200 amendments were offered for that. It was whittled down to 10, some were rejected out right while most were combined in some manner to reach 10. I suggest that the order they appear is important also.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I read where some think a ban on certain weapons in government-controlled areas is ok, but wouldn't be in other areas. That doesn't really make much sense to me.

It depends on what you mean by 'government controlled' areas.
Public property is like private property - in most cases, the PO can prohibit you from brining a gun onto the property. Usually, this ability must be codified into law, preventing local governments from doing it whenever they feel like it.

DC, while nominally under the controll of Congress, is like any other city in this regard.

It seems to me that if the purpose of the second amendment is to allow one to rise up against a tyrannical government (which is the position of some) that the government would be exactly the entity that COULDN'T restrict possession on their premises (since that's what you'd need for a real uprising -- not that I'm condoning one).

There's a difference, as noted above, between prohibiting firearms on public property and prohibiting firearms in a city as a whole.

It also seems that the one crime the founders saw fit to set forth in the Constitution is treason (and certainly any uprising against the government would be, by definition, treasonous). It, therefore, seems to me that the 2nd provides for gun ownership for use in SUPPORT of the government.... which fits with the organized militia provisions of the second.

That's part of the reason there is a militia. The other part is to ensure that there will always be a means to resist the government.