DC Lawyers argue gun rights are only for militias

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
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?"
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
421
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
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.
 

007

Charter Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
44,594
Reaction score
12,479
Points
2,180
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.
 
OP
Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
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.
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.
 

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
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.
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
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Forget the gun "training" classes. Here are ten simple rules to follow if you own guns
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,793
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Forget the gun "training" classes. Here are ten simple rules to follow if you own guns
Pardon the intrusion but whoever gets the first clear shot at Sophia and Marcello from the Burlington Coat factory commercial----TAKE IT.

back to your regularly scheduled programming ------
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
356
Points
85
If the rights of the people means the rights of individuals in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments, why does it not also mean rights of individuals in the 2nd? WTF?

And the second amendment does not, in any manner state that the right to bear arms is contingent upon the existence of the militia--it says the the existence of the militia is contingent upon the right to keep and bear arms, and the existence of the militia is essential to the secuity of a free state.

In any case, individual rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are not contingent upon the existence or neccessity of the militia.

Even judges should be able to parse that out.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I seem to remember this lil ditty from basic....'This is my weapon this is my gun, THIS is for killing, and THIS is for fun'..All the while holding both.

*I never called my weapon a gun*...LOL
That would be the "ultimate sin" just below the even MORE "ultimate sin" of dropping your weapon and letting it hit the deck.
 

Gem

Rookie
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
2,080
Reaction score
783
Points
0
This is nonsense...first of all considering that the amendments surrounding the 2nd are all regarding personal, individual freedoms...it makes no sense whatsoever that the writers of the document said, "hey...we just covered personal freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly...and we're going to get back to individual rights in a moment...but for now, lets jump right over to the right of the military to keep weapons..."

Umm...yeah...I'm sure thats exactly the type of written organization they were thinking of as they were writing.... :wtf:

And it makes perfect sense that after a war that was won specifically because the average citizen took up arms against an organized military that they would turn right around and create an amendment that took that right away from private citizens... :wtf:

Finally, theres the tricky little matter of the amendment itself

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.

Anyone with a basic understanding of English can understand that what this Amendment is saying is that because it is neccessary to have militias in order to maintain the security of a free State (um...like the colonialists needed to do in order to fight off the British to for our nation) the right of individuals to keep and use guys is vital...it is a vital right....like the freedom of speech, the freedom to a fair and speedy trial...the right to not have troops billeted in your homes...

The founding fathers were intelligent, forward-thinking, idealistic, hopeful individuals. They were not, however, trusting individuals...they knew that power corrupts...they knew that people are not always good, moral, and altruistic, they had seen what happens when governments attempt to oppress people...they knew that sometimes people have to rise up and overthrow the government when it gets out of control. And they knew that unless the ordinary man had a weapon to use in that uprising, a corrupt government would be able to oppress the people with military force.

The founding fathers wanted us to have that right. And we would be foolish indeed to throw it away.
 

LOki

The Yaweh of Mischief
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
4,084
Reaction score
356
Points
85
This is nonsense...first of all considering that the amendments surrounding the 2nd are all regarding personal, individual freedoms...it makes no sense whatsoever that the writers of the document said, "hey...we just covered personal freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly...and we're going to get back to individual rights in a moment...but for now, lets jump right over to the right of the military to keep weapons..."

Umm...yeah...I'm sure thats exactly the type of written organization they were thinking of as they were writing.... :wtf:

And it makes perfect sense that after a war that was won specifically because the average citizen took up arms against an organized military that they would turn right around and create an amendment that took that right away from private citizens... :wtf:

Finally, theres the tricky little matter of the amendment itself

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.

Anyone with a basic understanding of English can understand that what this Amendment is saying is that because it is neccessary to have militias in order to maintain the security of a free State (um...like the colonialists needed to do in order to fight off the British to for our nation) the right of individuals to keep and use guys is vital...it is a vital right....like the freedom of speech, the freedom to a fair and speedy trial...the right to not have troops billeted in your homes...
HAHA!:thup:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top