Has anyone seen this? "Scope of 2nd Amendment's [sic] Questioned"

This is a discussion on Has anyone seen this? "Scope of 2nd Amendment's [sic] Questioned" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editoria...&rg=blsadstrgt Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned Published: 12/7/06, 9:05 PM EDT By MATT APUZZO WASHINGTON (AP) - In a case that could shape firearms laws ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Has anyone seen this? "Scope of 2nd Amendment's [sic] Questioned"

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,408

    Has anyone seen this? "Scope of 2nd Amendment's [sic] Questioned"

    http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editoria...&rg=blsadstrgt

    Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned

    Published: 12/7/06, 9:05 PM EDT
    By MATT APUZZO


    WASHINGTON (AP) - In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

    The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

    At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

    If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

    In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

    Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

    "We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

    "Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

    Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

    Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

    "That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

    ___

    The case is: Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Va.
    Posts
    407
    Hell, the District is so screwed up, with their whole "Taxation Without Representation" thing and all. This will NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER happen, however.

    Not without a second Civil War breaking out. That I can guarantee.

  4. #3
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    Not this cherry again - trust DC (District of Crappola) to try this nonsense.

    They'd be better off getting gun ownership in their small non-USA enclave sorted out so folks can rest safer for a change.
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,000
    In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals


    Boy that should be an easy argument to shut down...

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    This should be interesting to keep an eye on.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array razorblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Va
    Posts
    558
    DC reminds me of that whiney, cry baby nephew that complains about every single thing they don't get a long with.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,000
    DC reminds me of that whiney, cry baby nephew that complains about every single thing they don't get a long with.

    ...who needs to be taken behind the woodshed and be reminded that the entire U.S. Constitution do not grant, but guarantees the rights of everyone...yeah, that means the 2nd Amendment applies to D.C. too...

  9. #8
    Member Array BigDaddy5's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    50
    so I've been trying to look up the courts on the way up...how have they all ruled?

  10. #9
    New Member Array ACP-.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    People's Democratic Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    9
    The case is in the Federal appeals court now, after a district Judge told 6 D.C. residents they had no right to own handguns. one or two stops, then possibly to the Supremes. D.C. gun laws have been fraked up a long time, when Marion Barry became 'Mayor for life', He was scared to death by a group of armed Muslims who took over City Hall back in the 70's, who were ticked off brcause of a movie that supposedly showed "Allah" in physical form. As a result, no one's been able to leagally buy a pistol in D.C. since 1976....
    "no one can enslave a free man, the only person who can do that is himself. No, you can't enslave a free man, the most you can do is kill him." Robert A. Heinlien

  11. #10
    Member Array Usmc_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    53
    Well, after what happened with the violations of our 2nd and 4th amendment rights after Katrina (with the unlawful confiscation of handguns) it is always nice to see our Gov. attempting to wipe their a$$es with the Constitution. I think if our forefathers could see the way things are going, they would turn over in their graves. Makes me sick.
    "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

    "You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work but I've found that a
    large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    I would seriously give money for all the idiots in America to be beaten until they realize the Bill of Rights guarantees inalienable rights. It doesn't grant anything.

    No, on second thought, I hope they go through with this. It's about time for a revolution anymore.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  13. #12
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,098
    I know we have talked about this before. The miltia in the context that the Constution was written was all able body men between the ages of 18-45 (I believe that this is spelled out in Pa. Con.). The national Guard was formed in 1916, 125 years after the Constution was written. The Miltia was unorganized and armed to protect us from Tyranny, or on Goverments or another country's. I am just glad that we have a conservative supreme court now.
    Last edited by pgrass101; December 8th, 2006 at 09:29 AM.

  14. #13
    Member Array Nate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Va.
    Posts
    407
    Even if we didn't, I'm with Mr. Heston: "Out of my cold, dead hands."

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constutuion, written before the Bill of Rights was.

    "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

    Clearly, the framers of the constituion meant for some oversight of the militia.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  16. #15
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,380
    Fine then, a militia we will have.


    If they did ban guns, who's going to come and get them? I'm not. Very few in the military would, as these types are kept in check by the good guys anyway.

    There is only one way to take away the 2nd amendment, and I'm surprised its not discussed more. Any guesses?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. "Why liberals should love the Second Amendment"
    By cf18 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2010, 11:47 AM
  2. "Applying 2nd Amendment restrictions to the 1st Amendment ;-)"
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 16th, 2007, 09:19 AM
  3. Ironic.....'Park Service pamphlet entitled "First Amendment Activities." '
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2006, 07:52 PM
  4. A True Texas Tale: "Bad Guy" "One", "Old Man" "Zero"
    By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment questioned by artical 1

Click on a term to search for related topics.