PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     truth about second amendment

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Supreme Court has ruled that your right to own a firearm is only protected as long as it "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US vs Miller)  

"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." (Second Amendment)

Warren Burger, a former Supreme Court Justice, comments on how the true meaning of the second amendment has been distorted, "The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based."


(Edited by gunmyths 12/9/2002 at 01:18 AM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 01:13 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

www.guncite.com . See the left hand column.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:15 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I went to www.guncite.com
Regardless of the original meaning of the second amendment, I know the view that the courts nowadays have towards the second amendment. Look- handguns were banned in Washington DC and that wasn't ruled unconstitional. There are about 25,000 gun-control laws in the US and they don't violate the second amendment- they haven't been ruled unconstitutional.  We can just keep passing more and more gun-control laws and no court will stop it.

(Edited by gunmyths 12/9/2002 at 01:31 AM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 01:29 AM on December 9, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know if it is on that website but the true meaning for the second amendment was a precaution for the american public if the british, whoes army technically should have kicked the hell out of us, returned to fight us again.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 05:28 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EXACTLY. that is why there is no more need for it (unless tony blair gets pissed off)


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 09:42 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
JFriday

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you consider the language of the 2nd Ammendment it is the same as the first with regard to the "people".  The same people are granted the rights of free speech, free press, to peacefully assemble, and to petition are the same people that are granted the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd.  If you say that the second is meant for the National Guard (which was not even created until 1903) would also mean that the first and indeed all amedments refering to the "people"
were meant solely for the National Guard.  And as for "...no need for it(unless Tony Blair gets pissed off)"  I would have to strongly disagree.  The Stats dont lie gun crime is on the rise in the U.K. where there is no 2nd Ammendment
1997: 12,410
2001: 17,589
up 41.7%
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
crime is fallingupwards in the U.K. (pardon the pun I just had to say that)
another interesting one is
www.unicri.it
just look at the crime rates now
we (the United States) are not even in the top ten except for burglary(being difined as illeagle entry into a residence/buissness with no occupants present)at which we are number 8 we have been nocked off of our infamous throne as the worlds leader in crime.  I dont feel like I will miss the spot though but you might want to ask a citizen I mean subject of the U.K. about how it feels to be number 1 or an Austraillian about number 2.
These sites are completely unbiased the 1st one is ran by the gov't of the UK and the second one is a United Nations one.
And as for the US vs Miller case, the case was not on the 2nd Amndmt.  The case was that the defendent Miller had in his posesion a short barrelled shotgun which is a class 3 destructive device.  Such Items are leagle if the $200 NFA tax is paid and a Class 3 FFL is held in this case it was not, the case was over money not the 2nd amdmnt.
In some areas (around prisons, border areas(US MEXICO) these weapons are actually recomended by most local law enforcement.  One thing though Gunmyths I have to applaud your keeping your character despite personal attacks against you.  I wish such things never occured but there is little I can do.  I have to say you have done an outstanding job with presenting your case.  You are a credit to this forum as you have not resulted to personal attacks despite attacks on you.


(Edited by JFriday 2/18/2003 at 12:29 AM).


-------
I pledge allegiance...
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:50 PM on February 17, 2003 | IP
Hyperiate

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gunmyths at 02:13 AM on December 9, 2002 :
The Supreme Court has ruled that your right to own a firearm is only protected as long as it "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US vs Miller)  


Allow me to resurrect this thread to actually quote the linked court decision...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

That seems to actually sort of kind or turn your entire argument around, invalidate your above quoted statement, and really validate the idea that the second amendment is an individual right and that a citizen-supported militia is expected to own and bear military-style weapons of current manufacture and design.


"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." (Second Amendment)


Oh yeah, I like that one. Many consitutional scholars (including Supreme Court Justices...and I mean current ones) have written at length about the "two halves" of the 2nd amendment. The first half, having to do with well-regulated militias and such, is the explanitory clause, which provides explanation, but does not imply any legal limitation or command. The second half is a command, that the rights of the people SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Warren Burger, a former Supreme Court Justice, comments on how the true meaning of the second amendment has been distorted, "The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based."


It's odd that the late Justice Burger never wrote about this in scholarly works, never expressed this thought in any legislative position, and certainly not while acting in the service of the United States Supreme Court. Instead, this is a quote taken from an article in Parade magazine, January, 1990. Unfortunately for gun-control advocates this represents, as writed Dave Kopel put it, "the high-water mark for anti-Second Amendment "scholarship."
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:57 PM on November 29, 2003 | IP
Arkalius

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gunmyths at 11:29 PM on December 8, 2002 :
Look- handguns were banned in Washington DC and that wasn't ruled unconstitional. There are about 25,000 gun-control laws in the US and they don't violate the second amendment- they haven't been ruled unconstitutional.  We can just keep passing more and more gun-control laws and no court will stop it.

(Edited by gunmyths 12/9/2002 at 01:31 AM).



It's too bad the DC ban wasn't ruled unconstitutional too. Washington DC has the highest murder rate by far in the entire US, and it went up sharply just after this ban was enacted.



-------
-Arkalius<br>
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:21 PM on September 11, 2004 | IP
Five Seven

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What liberals fail to mention however, is that at the time it was writen, "well regulated" meant "well armed" or "well prepared". The entire amendment has been bastardized by groups like the Brady campaign, who are completely ignorant of the ideals america wa founded upon.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:22 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Five Seven

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An argument writen by a fellow rightist...

Patriot's Second Amendment Defense is one of the best, here it is, but let's not just copy and paste. Read it and use the information in your own words

The Second Amendment, nor the rest of the Bill of Rights, grants rights. The Bill of Rights protects existing rights. I present to you the Preamble of the Bill of Rights followed by the grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment from the leading authority on early English grammer in the United States.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

As you can see from the Preamble itself that these rights already exist and they are put onto paper as further restrictions upon the federal government. This is done so to prevent abuses and misconstruction of the Constitution and the powers delegated therein. Now for the grammatical analysis.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he

security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."


As you can see that the right is pre-existing and the Bill of Rights does not grant the right to own them. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the pre-existing right to own weapons. Let's go into further grammatical analysis of the word arms. This is the definition from Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

2. War; hostility.

Arms and the man I sing.

To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.


As you can see that the useage of the word arms denotes military weapons. These weapons are not technologically fixed as the founding fathers saw changes in gun technology in their lifetimes. Also these weapons are the weapons the military uses even today.

For example, prior to the War of Independence most weapons were flintlocks that were unrifled. However, during the War of Independence weapons were rifled muskets and cannons had also improved. Prior to the flintlocks you had the blunderbuss design of guns. Sabers and bayonet designs had also progressed from the early colonial period to the time of the War of Independence.

Here's The Militia Act of 1792 for reference on military hardware as well as to whom the militia are comprised of.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.



III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.


As you can see that the militia is every man between the ages of 18 and 45. They are to be armed with the technological modern firearms of their day even down to the ownership of cannons of various sizes. There is no doubt that the Second Amendment protects the citizens rights to own and practice with military hardware. If there is some dispute in your mind on whether this is true or not here is some portions of the House of Representatives official journal of the debates on the Second Amendment.

Virginia — SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.


New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct...that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.


HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, July 28, 1789.

...[6] "A well regulated militia1, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."2

HOUSE RESOLUTION AND ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; August 24, 1789.

ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3


As you can see that in the debates the founding fathers were quite agreed upon the right of the people to keep and bear military hardware. No matter how many falsified statistics you pull up on gun deaths does not dispute the supreme law of the land. In fact, the sale of cannons and other military hardware continued up until the 1990's for the ownership of the people. Since any gun regulations is a violation of the Second Amendment they are indeed unconstitutional. For reference here is the definition of infringed from Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

As you can see that infringed means violated, broken, and transgressed. Make no mistake that gun control violates the Bill of Rights' protections upon guns and military hardware. If you still aren't convinced then here is part of the Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.

1. The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right

The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. 1 These rights are clearly individual — they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right.

What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? 2 It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 3

Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public.

And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment 4) — the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45;5 given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person.
2. Contemporaneous Constitutions and Commentaries Unanimously Treat the Right as an Individual Right

Contemporaneous evidence from the late 1700s and 1800s unanimously supports the individual rights reading of the text. It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights. England, of course, didn't have states, so the English right couldn't have been a states' right; Sir William Blackstone, whose 1765 Commentaries were tremendously influential in Revolutionary Era America, described the right as a "right of the subject," an obviously individual rights characterization. 6

Many early state Bills of Rights also protected the right to keep and bear arms; since these rights were protections against state governments, they surely must have protected individuals, not the states themselves. And many of the constitutions made this quite explicit. The 1790 Pennsylvania and the 1792 Kentucky Constitutions described the right as "the right of the citizens"; the 1796 Tennessee Constitution spoke of "the right of the freemen"; the 1817 Mississippi, 1818 Connecticut, 1819 Maine, and 1819 Alabama Constitution specifically referred to the right of "every citizen." The 1776 Pennsylvania, 1777 Vermont, 1802 Ohio, 1816 Indiana, and 1820 Missouri Constitutions spoke of "the people['s] right to bear arms for the defence of themselves," referring to the people individually ("themselves") rather than collectively ("itself"). 7 Throughout the 1800s, these unambiguously individual rights were seen as directly analogous to the Second Amendment. 8

The same goes for all the notable constitutional commentators of the 1800s. St. George Tucker (1803) treated the Second Amendment right as equivalent to Blackstone's "right of the subject"; 9 William Rawle (1829) did likewise. 10 Justice Joseph Story (1833 and 1840) called it a "right of the citizens." 11 Thomas Cooley (1880 and 1898) took exactly the same individual right view; 12 so did the 1866 Freedmen's Bureau Act, which specifically secured to "all the citizens" "the constitutional right to bear arms" as part of their "personal liberty." 13 A recent exhaustive study reveals that there was exactly one statement in the 1800s cases or commentaries supporting the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case. 14
3. The U.S. Supreme Court Cases Do Not Treat the Right as a Collective Right

The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions. In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15

One of the remaining five cases — and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right — is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16 But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard. Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

The only Supreme Court case that leans in the collective rights direction is Lewis v. United States (1980), which summarily rejected an ex-felon's claim of a right to possess a firearm, in passing citing some lower court cases that took a collective rights view. 17 But Lewis could equally well be explained as concluding only that ex-felons don't have a right to keep and bear arms (something that's also been held in the many states whose constitutions unambiguously guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms). In any event, if one relies on passing mentions, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) (quoting Justice Harlan) in passing described liberty as including "[freedom from] the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on" — a description that treats the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right on par with the other individual rights. 18

Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions. 19 If the historical or textual evidence were in equipoise, and if the cases dealt carefully with the evidence and explained why the pro-states'-right evidence was more persuasive than the pro-individual-right evidence, then perhaps we might defer to these courts' views. But when the lower courts' decisions are contrary to the unanimous weight of the evidence, and do not really confront this evidence but rely almost entirely on bald assertions or on citations to other lower court decisions, it seems to me that we must respectfully say that the lower courts are mistaken.


(Edited by Five Seven 9/10/2005 at 5:43 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:27 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Harlan Peppa

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the 2nd is a group right for government agencies, why is the Bill of Rights centered around rights of the individual citizen?


-------
Socialism is at the point of a gun.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 7:04 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Teflon

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok fine. Repeal the 2nd amendment. The 9th amendment still protects my right to own a gun.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 8:57 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Five Seven

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok fine. Repeal the 2nd amendment. The 9th amendment still protects my right to own a gun.


...and the tenth.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:14 PM on September 11, 2005 | IP
defender

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By what enumerated power could Congress ban guns?

There is none.  We need not even consider the 2nd Amendment.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 2:31 PM on September 25, 2005 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gunmyths at 01:29 AM on December 9, 2002 :
Look- handguns were banned in Washington DC and that wasn't ruled unconstitional.
(Edited by gunmyths 12/9/2002 at 01:31 AM).



Yep.  Isn't DC one of the most dangerous jurisdictions in the US?  Didn't violent crime increase after those law were passed?  Game, set, match.

For reference, compare the violent crime in States like Texas or Florida, with the least restrictive gun laws in the country, to the violent crime in DC.  In Florida I can carry a firearm and legally defend myself with deadly force whenever it is reasonably necessary for my safety.  As a consequence, I am safer than every single citizen of Washington DC.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:18 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gerogia passed a handgun ban in 1837 and it was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court.  the Second Amendment was cited as their primary reason.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 10:42 AM on April 26, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

US vs. Cruikshank- 1875-
"the second amendment declairs that... (the right to bear arms) shall not be infringed; but that this means no more than it shall not be infringed by congress."
does this mean that all congressinal gun control is unconsitutional? this would include the 1934, 1968, 1986 bans, as well as the recently sunsetted Assault weapons ban, ect. what this would mean is that state born gun control is legal, but national laws are not. it would also mean that here in Montana, the only restriction on firearms is that one must get a conceled weapons permit in order to carry a conceled weapon. was there any decisions reversing this rulling?
also, people should realize that in US vs Miller, only the US was present to argue the case, so the decision of US vs miller was decided not on what was right, but rather on standard court procedure, due to the fact that the law was not argued unconsitutinal.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 12:33 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And the 18th amendment declares.... oh wait, no amendments "guarantee" anything as they can be repealed by acts of Congress.  Nevermind.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:14 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:14 PM on May 1, 2006 :
And the 18th amendment declares.... oh wait, no amendments "guarantee" anything as they can be repealed by acts of Congress.  Nevermind.


has any of the "original ten", also called the bill of rights ever been removed? and, yes, the bill of rights guarentees a number of rights, and therefore, if someone trys to take these rights, we must fight such a removal. the 18th amendment was a failed attempt to legislate through the consitution, which is why it was the only amendment to be repealed. I am resonably cirtian that it is the only amendment ever to have reistricted rights, so it might not be the best example of all time.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:55 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We do not ignore the first half, none of use has ever, to my knowledge, been against the military, however the second half has to do with civil liberties. In case all of you liberal thick heads need an education on the Constitution, the Constitution in no ways limits the free people. Its only purpose for existence is to limit the government. So if it says that a we need a well regulated militia, than that means that the government has the ability to have an army. It has nothing to do with civilians.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:09 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
thewolf

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well that the courts haveruled that the second amendment is about an "indaviduals " right to keep and bear arms that gives an entirely clear meaning to the second, and that clears up all the so called misunderstandings of what the framers wanted and wrote...

DC folks are going to have the very same rights as all other americans and that my friends is a damn good thing


-------
my guns have killed no one...so they must be broken...

Never surrender your right to own to a moron in DC
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:06 PM on March 21, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.