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

Virginian,
I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, the Supremes can "interpret" the Constitution any way they want and they do. Oh yes, they do. I am holding my breath. Jake

Jakearoo, you previously raised an interesting point and possibility concerning the 2nd amendment as being either personal or collective. In the same context, what about the 1st amendment and free speech. All of our constitutional rights could be eroded by the courts in a similar manor - one by one. Remember several Presidents comments re: 'a new world order' - interesting.

"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."

George, The personal or collective thing is THE key. The Court ruled in United States v. Miller in 1939 (That involved shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches used by a gangster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) that the right to "keep and bear arms" was related to the use of weapons that could be part of a militia. That may be a very bad ruling for us gun guys. (I originally thought it held that the right was collective. I have looked and it was not quite that issue.)
The Constitution was written by revolutionaries who were sick and tired of government autocratic control and authority. The comma was not dropped in there at random. There are no other "communal" rights in the Constitution. They are all personal rights to personal freedoms.
A free man was meant to have the right to own guns. And, a free man has the right to use it do defend his freedom if necessary. Course, that can get kinda messy.

Best Regards, Jake

I agree with Craig (above). It would seem obvious, as written, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia was considered all males at the time.

This will be an interesting argument and outcome.

Jim

Fortunatly, or not as the case may be, the court will not be addressing whether the States may limit gun ownership. D.C. is not a state. So even if they rule against D.C. that may settle nothing elsewhere. It might make state governments more reluctant to pass restrictive laws but chances are the court will give a very narrow ruling that applies to D.C. only.
npm

It's in the bag, surely. Isn't it a conservative Court?

The court is about evenly balanced 4 libs, 4 cons with one swing voter...Kennedy. Better than it was before Roberts was named Chief Justice.

Let us all give thanks that Kennedy's first name isn't Teddy.

Which has no chance of ratification by the states. It has as much chance as the abortion amendment.

Two points. The phrase "the people" has already been ruled in other amendments to mean just that, individuals. The court also ruled on the term "malitia" in a case where a governor said that the Federal government had no jurisdiction over the National Guard because it was the state Malitia. The court ruled that it was actually a branch of the Army and that the malitia is composed of the citizens who supply their own arms. We all know the bull argument that the antis constantly preach but there is NO historic precedent to support their argument. The NRA has been working for years compiling historic fact concerning the second amendment. Time will tell how narrow an interpretation they shall rule on. The trap has been set and is about to be sprung. We will know who the activist judges are. You would have to have some very convoluted reasoning to say this right is anything other than an individual right.