DC Gun Ban Goes To Court

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
Your thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23656329/

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
 

navyvetcv60

Orange Belt
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
70
Reaction score
6
Location
Warren County,Ohio
It should be a no brainer if they read the writings of the founders as to why they gave us the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated ( meaning trained ) militia ( This is NOT the National Gaurd, despite what they tell people in the Government run schools ) being nessesary to the security of a free state, and the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

If anybody has any doubt of my above assertions please research the founding Fathers writings on this.
 

Dave Leverich

Black Belt
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
672
Reaction score
4
Location
Albany, OR
"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 shot since I was four years old. But you did add an 'and' to the amendment, which would tend to sway it's apparent intent towards 'AND we get guns'.

I personally think yes, we get guns, and should be good citizens and help out when called. I think the founding fathers had the same thoughts, they also didn't sue people for hot coffee, or let murderers walk on technicalities etc.
 

tellner

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
4,380
Reaction score
236
Location
Orygun
I do believe in the 2AM. But I've got a question for the Unorganized Militia.

Suppose you're driving down the highway and run up against a State Patrol roadblock. The trooper says "There's a wildfire, and we need people to man the fireline. Every adult less than 70 years old in this car has just volunteered." Would you do it as your civic duty? Would you say "I don't have to and won't"? Would you say "Go hire someone to do it" ?

It's not a theoretical question. I don't know if Oregon and Washington still have those laws on the books. Some time back the authorities could and did mobilize the Unorganized Militia to deal with emergencies. Fires were a big one. Is your membership in the militia just an excuse for you to have your toys and cast yourself as the lead in Red Dawn, or is it a recognition of the price of citizenship that you have to pay even if you don't want to?
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
I think the framers definition of "The People" is pretty clear and the fact that all the rights are conferred to "The People" is pretty clear also.

Because some dont like it that "The People" shows up in the 2nd Amendment is the only reason semantics are being debated.
 

Dave Leverich

Black Belt
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
672
Reaction score
4
Location
Albany, OR
I'd say no, I volunteer, my wife takes the kids out of here. ;p.

I don't consider firearms of any nature to be 'toys' and find it offensive that some do. They are weapons first and foremost and should be treated with respect and careful consideration. As far as a price to pay even if you don't want to... if NO one does the right thing, what kind of society are we? Sorry, that isn't me.
 

Monadnock

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
717
Reaction score
15
Location
Land-of-the-self-proclaimed-10th-Dan's
One's got nothing to do with the other, really. It's a way to distract us from the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment. We're allowed to have guns in order for the people to mobilize and defend this country from all threats (foreign and domestic) if need be.

Self defense, hunting and sports are all a distant 2nd, 3rd and 4th place IMHO.

Stock up now, boys :D This game is nearing completion, and we're only having our rights nibbled away each day.
 

navyvetcv60

Orange Belt
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
70
Reaction score
6
Location
Warren County,Ohio
"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 shot since I was four years old. But you did add an 'and' to the amendment, which would tend to sway it's apparent intent towards 'AND we get guns'.

I personally think yes, we get guns, and should be good citizens and help out when called. I think the founding fathers had the same thoughts, they also didn't sue people for hot coffee, or let murderers walk on technicalities etc.

I stand corrected!
 

MBuzzy

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
107
Location
West Melbourne, FL
So how relevant is the 2nd ammendment in today's world? At the time that the ammendment was written, people needed weapons to defend their lives from the british and many other enemies. Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I dont' think that we live in quite as violent of a world. The average person doesn't have a gun in their home for self protection - really. They have it to go shoot, primarily for recreation.

In the event of a real situation on American soil, I would be willing to bet that the military would prefer that civilians NOT get involved. Stay in their homes and let them deal with it. The more civilians running around with guns in the streets, the more dangerous it will be for the military. Personally, I'm IN the military and I would NOT be sitting in my house taking pot shots at the enemy walking down the street. I would be making my way to base immediately, because that's my job. But if it was not, I would keep my weapon handy in case someone tried to come in, but other than that, I wouldn't be leaving. I just don't think that a modern day unorganized militia is too realistic. Although I'd love to hear the arguments for it.

TO ME - the bottom line is this....the military is not a single man. The military is an organized fighting team. Alone, not very effective, together, the most powerful military on the planet. I just feel that in a war on American soil, things would not be decided by insurgency and guerilla tactics.
 

Blindside

Grandmaster
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
5,060
Reaction score
690
Location
Kennewick, WA
TO ME - the bottom line is this....the military is not a single man. The military is an organized fighting team. Alone, not very effective, together, the most powerful military on the planet. I just feel that in a war on American soil, things would not be decided by insurgency and guerilla tactics.

Maybe things wouldn't be "decided" by insurgency and guerrilla tactics, insurgencies are seldom successful without heavy outside backing. But that isn't the point, the point is to bleed your enemies and make occupation not worth their while.

That the function of the militia has to change given the disparity in modern armaments is understandable, but without the necessary tools, ala no 2nd Amendment, the option isn't even an option.

Lamont
 

tellner

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
4,380
Reaction score
236
Location
Orygun
Quite the contrary, Mondanock. The whole idea of the militia is that in times of emergency - national, local, whatever - they will be ready to serve. It doesn't mean that they're in the official military or fire department. The "well regulated" militia's right to arms is protected so that the members are ready to come to the defense of the state or the nation including against a tyrannical government. It's in the service of a perceived public duty which they may be required to fulfill at any time.

It's not just so that we can have our toys. It's so that we can carry out a function the founders considered vital to the *shudder* collective good. The cases aren't just parallel. They are just about congruent.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
In order to even begin defining the terms of the argument, it one is trying to understand the 2nd Amendment, one must understand the context of time times in which it is written.

Firstly, although I understand the concept of service, the 2nd Amendment does not have anything to do with fighting fires.

As many of the Framers of the Constitution understood it (IMO), one of the two main reasons for the Amendment was to ward off an oppressive government. It is in alot of their writings, from the Declaration of Independence to the Federalist Papers; the ability to throw off the yoke of their own oppressive government. The only way to do that is if the individual has arms.

Regardless of what one may think about our chances of actually being able to defeat the U.S. Military, it is still our right to be able to defend ourselves from the government attempting to impose its tyrannical will. And as an example, it only takes one person to kill an elected executive, and with no need for a bazooka or rocket launcher, but a simple handgun or rifle.

The other example I will use is that of English Common Law, which alot of our original laws were based. This is the rule of Posse Comitatus. Any able-bodied person could be called upon by the sheriff to assist in law enforcement functions. Each person had an obligation to assist. This is where the concept of a "militia" arises. This means everybody. That is where your "well regulated milita" comes in.
 

Monadnock

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
717
Reaction score
15
Location
Land-of-the-self-proclaimed-10th-Dan's
Quite the contrary, Mondanock. The whole idea of the militia is that in times of emergency - national, local, whatever - they will be ready to serve. It doesn't mean that they're in the official military or fire department. The "well regulated" militia's right to arms is protected so that the members are ready to come to the defense of the state or the nation including against a tyrannical government. It's in the service of a perceived public duty which they may be required to fulfill at any time.

It's not just so that we can have our toys. It's so that we can carry out a function the founders considered vital to the *shudder* collective good. The cases aren't just parallel. They are just about congruent.

While the militia may have served many functions, the 2nd Ammendment was not about the right to shovels, fire hoses and sand bags. It's explicitly about bearing arms.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
22,122
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Northern VA
The other example I will use is that of English Common Law, which alot of our original laws were based. This is the rule of Posse Comitatus. Any able-bodied person could be called upon by the sheriff to assist in law enforcement functions. Each person had an obligation to assist. This is where the concept of a "militia" arises. This means everybody. That is where your "well regulated milita" comes in.

And, actually, they still can in many states. See, for example, this Virginia code section:
§ 18.2-464. Failure to obey order of conservator of the peace.
If any person, being required by a conservator of the peace on view of a breach of the peace or other offense to bring before him the offender, refuse or neglect to obey the conservator of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor; and if the conservator of the peace declare himself or be known to be such to the person so refusing or neglecting, ignorance of his office shall not be pleaded as an excuse.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-302; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)
 

Latest Discussions

Top