Settling the meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It’s hard to believe that after over two centuries, the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms.”

But that’s about to change. The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a DC case that will probably settle the question, at least for now.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal from the District of Columbia, whose gun-control law — one of the strictest in the nation — was struck down by the lower federal courts earlier this year. The case will probably be argued in the spring.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down sections of the Washington gun law that make it exceedingly difficult to legally own a handgun, that prohibit carrying guns without a license even from one room to another, and that require lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded.

The Second Amendment, surely one of the most disputed passages in the United States Constitution and one whose punctuation is not always rendered consistently, states this in its entirety: “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.”

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the basic meaning of that passage. When it last considered a Second Amendment case, in 1939, it addressed a somewhat peripheral question, holding that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the “arms” that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

The debate is specifically over the language of the amendment itself. Lyle Denniston posed the question nicely: “[D]oes the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

individual right

[Sheriff Uling 3]

They can come and try to take my guns...

[jundp 191]

Ooooh. We JUST debated the First and Second Amendments in my media classes today. Weird.

My classes were pretty evenly split on the second amendment as to who felt it meant "individual" and who felt it meant "in militia."

Same for the first amendment, actually. Lots of debate on "separation of church and state" which isn't actually stated in the amendment. It only says the government won't choose a religion and enforce it on the people. Oooh Constitutional debate is fuuuuuuun.

[GaryC 7]

Steven,

How are you going to react if the court decides that it is an individual's right to keep and bear arms?

[rebeccajo 14]

I don't think the forefather's had AK-47's and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the passage.

[Jaseball 0]

I don't think the forefather's had AK-47's and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the passage.

Nope, they had the best weapons available for the military at the time in mind. I should then be allowed to own and operate a SAW or any true automatic weapons.

I always find it funny when people talk about 'automatic handguns.' It's semi-auto. One pull, one shot.

As for the right to bear arms I would argue the militia aspect. Do we really believe the founding fathers thought our Federal forces or the State National Guard needed the constitution to protect their right to bear arms? Wouldn't this be a given?

This country was formed by a bunch of colonists who revolted against what they believed to be a corrupt and unjust monarchy. The common person taking up arms and fighting against an established government.

If the British had won, then the revolution would have been full of terrorists and traitors to be executed. The founding fathers won instead, so the terms become patriots, heroes, and freedom fighters.

The entire point of the 2'nd amendment is for the common citizen to be able to arm themselves, protect their family, and if things go to hell where they are, the ability to fight and shoot back against possible tyranny and oppression.

[LuzyC 0]

opps!

Edited November 21, 2007 by LuzyC

[GaryC 7]

I don't think the forefather's had AK-47's and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the passage.

Nope, they had the best weapons available for the military at the time in mind. I should then be allowed to own and operate a SAW or any true automatic weapons.

I always find it funny when people talk about 'automatic handguns.' It's semi-auto. One pull, one shot.

As for the right to bear arms I would argue the militia aspect. Do we really believe the founding fathers thought our Federal forces or the State National Guard needed the constitution to protect their right to bear arms? Wouldn't this be a given?

This country was formed by a bunch of colonists who revolted against what they believed to be a corrupt and unjust monarchy. The common person taking up arms and fighting against an established government.

If the British had won, then the revolution would have been full of terrorists and traitors to be executed. The founding fathers won instead, so the terms become patriots, heroes, and freedom fighters.

The entire point of the 2'nd amendment is for the common citizen to be able to arm themselves, protect their family, and if things go to hell where they are, the ability to fight and shoot back against possible tyranny and oppression.

Yep! What you said!

[Dan J 277]

I don't think the forefather's had AK-47's and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the passage.

Nope, they had the best weapons available for the military at the time in mind. I should then be allowed to own and operate a SAW or any true automatic weapons.

I always find it funny when people talk about 'automatic handguns.' It's semi-auto. One pull, one shot.

As for the right to bear arms I would argue the militia aspect. Do we really believe the founding fathers thought our Federal forces or the State National Guard needed the constitution to protect their right to bear arms? Wouldn't this be a given?

This country was formed by a bunch of colonists who revolted against what they believed to be a corrupt and unjust monarchy. The common person taking up arms and fighting against an established government.

If the British had won, then the revolution would have been full of terrorists and traitors to be executed. The founding fathers won instead, so the terms become patriots, heroes, and freedom fighters.

The entire point of the 2'nd amendment is for the common citizen to be able to arm themselves, protect their family, and if things go to hell where they are, the ability to fight and shoot back against possible tyranny and oppression.

Back in the founding of our country, states were much more independent than they are now. Many of them had their own militias. In the historical context it was to protect the states, and prevent the federal government from assuming too much power.

As its written, it doesn't protect and individuals right to own a firearm, but it doesn't ban it either. So a city or state could redefine gun ownership for its jurisdiction if it wanted to.

[mawilson 2,133]

Back in the founding of our country, states were much more independent than they are now. Many of them had their own militias. In the historical context it was to protect the states, and prevent the federal government from assuming too much power.

I think that last part is still very important.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven,

How are you going to react if the court decides that it is an individual's right to keep and bear arms?

The Constitution, IMO, sets forth the limitations of governmental power and the Bill of Rights specifically addresses the rights of the individual, so I believe the 2nd Amendment was meant to prevent the government from not allowing its citizens to possess arms. However, that right shouldn't extend to the point of someone possessing a deadly arsenal of weaponry - or stockpiling. I don't think the Supreme Court will striking down most of the current state and federal gun laws as unconsitutional. It'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will define 'arms' and its legal limitations.

Edited November 21, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Jasman0717 9]

What was it Charlon Heston said "from my cold dead hands"

[bgreed 0]

I don't think the forefather's had AK-47's and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the passage.

Nope, they had the best weapons available for the military at the time in mind. I should then be allowed to own and operate a SAW or any true automatic weapons.

I always find it funny when people talk about 'automatic handguns.' It's semi-auto. One pull, one shot.

As for the right to bear arms I would argue the militia aspect. Do we really believe the founding fathers thought our Federal forces or the State National Guard needed the constitution to protect their right to bear arms? Wouldn't this be a given?

This country was formed by a bunch of colonists who revolted against what they believed to be a corrupt and unjust monarchy. The common person taking up arms and fighting against an established government.

If the British had won, then the revolution would have been full of terrorists and traitors to be executed. The founding fathers won instead, so the terms become patriots, heroes, and freedom fighters.

The entire point of the 2'nd amendment is for the common citizen to be able to arm themselves, protect their family, and if things go to hell where they are, the ability to fight and shoot back against possible tyranny and oppression.

Amazing someone else who understands original intent. And historical signifigance of "the right to keep and bear arms".

[Ban Hammer 14,281]

I don't think the forefather's had AK-47's and automatic handguns in mind when they wrote the passage.

can you provide me a link of this automatic handgun? i'm interested in seeing one.