doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Second Amendment - this will be interesting

I am mildly optimistic on this one; however, it would have been better if not heard as it would have reversed the DC ban of 31 years. I suspect this will be a 5 to 4 decision. Let's just hope it is in the right direction!

Jim

7 to 2 or 5 to 4 is all the same. Roe V Wade was a 7 to 2 vote. The Florida vote that ended up electing Bush was a 7 to 2 and on a lesser point a 5 to 4 vote. Hoping to get a vote out of any court that limits power of the government is a real stretch in my book. I am hoping it goes our way for once and for all. Just not holding my breath.

The fact that they took it up is a bit scary. Leaving the appeal decision alone would have been just fine. It will be interesting if they address the decision of whether the second amendmant is personal or collective. I understand that is squarely on their plates. My fingers are crossed. Jake

I'm betting the issue of guns intended for personal vs. militia will not be resolved in this.

Whether the right is collective or individual is a core issue of the lawsuit. It will get decided upon - in the context of owning a sidearm in DC. All of the chips are on the table as far as the Federal law goes. Many states already have their version of the Second Amendment, which would not be trumped by a loss in this case.

As someone who lives in a place where handguns and "assault weapons" are illegal and the city has used its licensing power to prohibit the sale of ALL GUNS AND AMMUNITION, I'm watching this closely.

The 2nd is an interestingly worded amendment. IMO and individual right to own and keep military weapons in the home. That said, the "well regulated militia" limits the scope of ownership and use to citizens not engaged in unlawful or disorderly conduct. No private militias, armies or armed mobs allowed. Perhaps regulation of artillery, explosives and such??? I'd expect full-auto to stay illegal.

Not a lawyer, but a couple of points:
1. It is common for the SCOTUS to take up cases that have had differing rulings in the lower courts. That is the case here.
2. Can the District of Columbia, not being a state, even have a "well regulated militia" ?
3. Saw a clip of the D.C. Mayor arguing that many of the homicides in the district were caused by handguns so they should continue to be banned. This argument would seem to indicate that the DC ban doesn't work anyway- a strang argument to make in favor of the ban.

Please note the following:
"The right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". is the primary clause in the Second Ammendent.
"A well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State" Is a dependent clause and in meaningless on it's own.
Jim

The amendment was intended to be a barrier to absolute rule by any tyrannical power. Targets, hunting, nor self defense are mentioned, OR relavent. All males (not including slaves at that time) were members of the militia. It was also intended that the individual populace would be armed with the latest weapons (i.e. - assault weapons) to enhance their effectiveness.
Comparing the text of the Second Amendment with ALL THE OTHER ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS, there can be little doubt the original right was intended to be individual one.
I wish the Supremes had not reviewed it, which amounts to a pocket endorsement of the Appeals Court ruling. If the Supremes rule "OUR" way, the next thing is everyone from Nancy P. to PETA will be calling for a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the Second Amendment.