Supreme Court will be taking the issue of the 2nd amendment head on...

[Cruentus]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-levy14nov14,0,2444377.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

That is just an opinion article on the subject written a few days ago; but on the News today I caught a blurb that the Supreme Court will review the Parker vs. District of Columbia case.

This is HUGE folks. In their doing this, our supreme court will define whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to individual rights or not.

This is make or break time here folks. Time to see if we still live in a free country or not. ALL gun control legislation will fall under this ruling one way or the other when they make their decision. If they decide that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, then gun control laws will follow to eventually erode our right to bear arms. If they decide that it does apply to the individual, then our rights will be protected.

This is very scary, folks; but I really hope that our civil liberties are preserved.

I will try to find more recent articles on the subject, and keep updated on this...

 

[Cruentus]

Here we go; an official announcement that the Supreme Court will be taking up the issue, straight from the Supreme Court of the US blog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-agrees-to-rule-on-gun-case/

 

[mrhnau]

Thanks for posting this. It's reasons like this that I'm glad the court is slightly right leaning. I'd hate to see such a broad scope ruling hacking away at the 2nd amendment.

 

[Cruentus]

Thanks for posting this. It's reasons like this that I'm glad the court is slightly right leaning. I'd hate to see such a broad scope ruling hacking away at the 2nd amendment.

I'm glad of this too, and this makes me sort of glad that they are taking on the issue now. But I am terrified of it going the other way; so the very fact that they are taking on the issue makes me nervous. But I think that this will go our way...

 

[Doc_Jude]

If you pray, pray. Me, I think there may be a "break-in" at my house depending on how this thing goes. I might "lose" some stuff!

 

[Bigshadow]

Well, if it fails I must ask....

But what are we to do when... a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism....

It is our right, our duty, is it not?

 

[Grenadier]

This is actually a good time to take the case. In the past, the vote would probably have been 5-4 in favor of the gun grabbers, since Sandra Day-O'Connor isn't exactly a friend of the Second Amendment.

With the current court, I expect a 5-4 ruling in favor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy voting in the affirmative.

 

[dart68]

So when do the expect to hear this case? Or did I miss that in the blog?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I would be very, very nervous of this. Do not think for one minute that all the right leaning court members will vote for our right to bear arms. This is very scary!

 

[Guardian]

I sure hope they vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment because if they should not, we all know how this will go and it won't be good for us or this country. States will follow and the first thing to go will be the CCW permits for sure and then (well we all know how it would go).

Please keep us posted.

 

[newGuy12]

I would be very, very nervous of this. Do not think for one minute that all the right leaning court members will vote for our right to bear arms. This is very scary!

It is. But all of the "experts" that I have heard say that we are safe, for now.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I think the writings of the founding fathers on the issue is exceeding clear. I hope that the attny arguing for individual rights has done his/her homework.

 

[lhommedieu]

So when do the expect to hear this case? Or did I miss that in the blog?

According to a news story I heard on the radio last week they will hear the case by February and a decision is expected by early June, 2008.

I thought that George T. Will described the issue nicely in the following article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/03/18/the_right_to_bear_arms_in_washington_dc

Following is a quote from Will's article:

"When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize -- make fundamental -- the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense -- the public's involvement in public safety."

Most people on either side generally frame the issue in terms of whether the Founding Fathers meant that either individuals have the right to bear arms for their personal protection or whether that right is reserved for members of the States' militias. But a crucial turn in the argument may take place if the Plaintiff defines "militia" in terms of "a readiness for self-defense...the public's involvement in public safety..." i.e., whether the right to bear arms is a presupposition for the protection of other freedoms, that are not, in fact, simply "givens."

Best,

Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

According to a news story I heard on the radio last week they will hear the case by February and a decision is expected by early June, 2008.

I thought that George T. Will described the issue nicely in the following article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/03/18/the_right_to_bear_arms_in_washington_dc

Following is a quote from Will's article:

"When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize -- make fundamental -- the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense -- the public's involvement in public safety."

Most people on either side generally frame the issue in terms of whether the Founding Fathers meant that either individuals have the right to bear arms for their personal protection or whether that right is reserved for members of the States' militias. But a crucial turn in the argument may take place if the Plaintiff defines "militia" in terms of "a readiness for self-defense...the public's involvement in public safety..." i.e., whether the right to bear arms is a presupposition for the protection of other freedoms, that are not, in fact, simply "givens."

Best,

Steve

I agree with the comments presented here. If one looks at the time period of just having to have a war of rebellion or independance depending upon which side you look, it would not have happened if the people could not have been able to take action in public safety as well as their own safety.

I know my words are not as eloquent and I apologize for that.

Thanks for sharing the link.

 

[Guardian]

I agree with the comments presented here. If one looks at the time period of just having to have a war of rebellion or independance depending upon which side you look, it would not have happened if the people could not have been able to take action in public safety as well as their own safety.

I know my words are not as eloquent and I apologize for that.

Thanks for sharing the link.

It's not the fanciness of the words my friend, it's the meaning behind them and yours say alot.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Wow, wow, wow... I'm confused "...the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." how is that a debatable issue?

Come to think of it, then who could own guns? Black water? I'm not sure I trust them...

 

[diamondbar1971]

I live in the midwest, the ozarks, a genuine sure enough you betcha hillybilly, state, where i can guarantee you that it would take an absolute civil war to take guns from anyone that lives in the country in any of the
49 states of the western hemisphere. Everyone grows up hunting and fishing and a lot are vets with combat experience who would not bat an eye to defend their constutional right to bear arms and the government needs to understand just what the phrase bear arms means. i for one have no intention of giving my guns to anyone, except my kids when i pass on. thats one of the reasons this country has not been invaded, we all have guns and everyone else knows this. if something like this ever did pass, who would go collect the guns....and who would be able to manufacture that many body bags.....because thats exactly how it would be...

 

[lhommedieu]

"...the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." how is that a debatable issue?

It's debatable because of that little "a well-regulated militia" phrase that precedes your quote. There is also a semantic difference between the right to "keep" arms and the right to "bear" them.

Don't get me wrong - I support your right to keep and bear arms. It's just that the issue is complicated and up until now the two camps of the debate, both of which spend millions of dollars financing their candidates in local, state, and federal elections, are still talking past each other. I'm not naive enought to think that Will's argument will appeal to either camp, but I am hoping that something similar will be argued before the Court in February and we can move past the "he said/she said" tenor of the debate. I came across this book that would appear to echo Will's claim that the right to bear arms is a civic (not individual) duty. I'm going to order it today.

Just one more point: if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs we'll be right back to where we stand today: local and state governments will decide where your right to bear arms begins and ends. However, if the Court rules for the plainfiffs you can expect to hear a lot of challenges to local and state ordinances.

Best,

Steve

 

[tshadowchaser]

To me, even the thought that this must go before the Supreme Court is scary.

In my mind the Constitution is clear in what it says.. All of the argument on it was written in a different time have no bearing on what it says. It says the government may not infringe on the individuals right to bear arms.
Then again if you read it the way I do then no state should have the right to deny a person from owning a firearm. Come to think about it I do not see where it says we have to pay the state a fee to own a firearm. But that’s a different subject

 

[Bigshadow]

It's debatable because of that little "a well-regulated militia" phrase that precedes your quote.

It seems to me it states "Well-regulated militia" not "well-regulated arms". Certainly the militia should be well regulated. If they aren't they cannot work together and function in a capacity to repel whatever enemy is upon the people. The right to arms is for everyone as this is the pool upon which the militia is drawn from. I believe what is meant by a well-regulated militia, is a militia that is trained and operated properly.

Just my opinion.