Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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.“

That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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.“

That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point).

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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.“

That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point).

[/ QUOTE ]


WTF? why on earth should it not? Why would you ever advocate removing right to self preservation and self rule from the constitution?

I get it, your scared of guns and don't understand them. Lets get objective here and realize how this country was even founded in the first place.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, states:
“ 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.“

That was 1787. That entire part of the constitution doesn't really apply to 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think so, feel free to amend it. Until then it applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It applies legally, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD apply (which I believe was his point).

[/ QUOTE ]

whoa whoa whoa. If we're going to start actually using normal reading comprehension and stop playing games with semantics then there should at least be an announcement in the sticky or something.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

WTF? why on earth should it not? Why would you ever advocate removing right to self preservation and self rule from the constitution?

I get it, your scared of guns and don't understand them. Lets get objective here and realize how this country was even founded in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Relax there, I was just trying to clarify the man's point. I support the right to gun ownership.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should the federal government be able to tell a state (or in this case DC) that it can't ban guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the federal government should be able to intervene anytime the Constitution is being trampled on. What if a state decided to disregard the 13th?

I'm sure most (reasonable people, not ACists) would agree that if, for example, Tennessee decided to round up all black people and enslave them tomorrow, the federal government should get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't because the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments all specifically apply to the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does the 2nd. Unlike the 1st, the 2nd doesn't say it applies only to Congress.

On the other hand, I don't think the Feds should be involved regardless and wouldn't mind seeing an amendment that let states ban guns if they want and more clearly barred the federal government from doing so (although I dunno how it could be more clear).

[/ QUOTE ]

Only those Amendments that have been incorporated into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment apply to the states. Note that few of the original bill of rights specifically refer to the Federal government even though none of them have applied to the states until incorporation through the 14th Amendment began.

Examples:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Taso]

I don't think that is correct. Check Article four of the constitution

[ QUOTE ]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply because it says:

[ QUOTE ]
Congress shall make no law

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a restriction on Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a statement of the "People"'s right. Therfore, the qouted part of the Article 4 applies.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is correct. Check Article four of the constitution

[ QUOTE ]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a statement of the "People"'s right. Therfore, the qouted part of the Article 4 applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are arguing what the court's interpretation of the Constitution is/has been you are wrong. First and foremost, there are 2 p&i clauses. The one you quote talks about someone having privileges and immunities of "citizens in the several states." Basically, this means that one state couldn't unfairly discriminate against citizens of another (I also think it means if someone is married in one state, all states would have to recognize that marriage despite what DOMA says.)

The P&I Clause of the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is a much better place to hang your hat that the Bill of Rights applies to the states (though, it was specifically rejected by the court.)

[andyfox]

We discussed this in March. One of the things I pointed out was that if the case made it to SCOTUS, we would have a chance to see if Scalia's originalism was truly originalism or intellectual hooey. From that thread:

Madison's initial formulation of the right to bear arms read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free coutnry; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The House of Representatives revised Madison's original formulation, placing the affirmation of a well-regulated militia before the right to keep and bear arms. The introductory clauses of statues were commonly understood by eighteenth-century lawyers to hold the key to the meaning of a law. Framing the right to bear arms as a corollary of a preamble focusing on the need for a well-regulated militia clearly signaled that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the militia. The House also added a clause describing the militia as "composed of the body of the people" and changed a semicolon to a comma, an editorial decision that linked the clauses containing the miltia and the right of the people more closely.

In the debate in the House over how to treat religious pacifists, reference to the miltia was paramount. Elbridge Gerry said that "whenever government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia." The British had "used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward." Gerry, one of the few Anti-Federalists to be elected to the House, did not mention any threat to the rights of individuals to use guns outside militia service.

So if Scalia really wants our laws to reflect the reality of what they meant when they were passed, he will not vote to uphold the right of an individual to own guns based on the 2nd amendment.

[andyfox]

That's not what the 2nd amendment says.