Supreme Court to Overturn DC Gun Ban once and for all

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Had there been any reason for the federalists and anti-federalists to discuss the issue of the private, individual rights of ownership of firearms, certainly the record would indicate that discussion. It does not. It does show lots of discussion of militias, standing armies, conscientious objection to taking part in militia duty, and the fear of a powerful national government trumping citizens' militias.

[/ QUOTE ]
This could also be interpreted as meaning that the protection of individual ownership of firearms was simply not controversial. I think you've said something very close to this. The fact that they were arguing over militas and standing armies may simply be an indication that this was a more sensitive and urgent subject -- nevertheless, the 2nd amendment could very much be interpreted as an individual right. One that, amongst other things, had consequences for the militias and standing armies.

[Keepitsimple]

I find it surprising that you still argue what men wrote and said 200 years ago. Modern religion?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it surprising that you still argue what men wrote and said 200 years ago. Modern religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm, it's pretty important when it's the law. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Keepitsimple]

I was too quick earlier.

I find it surprising the law hasnt been rewritten or revised in 200 years.

[andyfox]

If the Supreme Court find that the law does not protedt an individual's right to possess arms for personal use, I would imagine that there will be a groundswell of support for either a new amendment or a rewriting of the second amendment. And that there would be a very good chance of success.

But I believe the Supreme Court will find that the second amendment does protect individual rights.

[andyfox]

That there was no discussion about it meant that it was not a reason for objection to the new proposed Constitution and thus it was not needed in the Bill or Rights. And that's why it's not there.

I'm actually in favor of using latitude to interpret the words of the Consitution in new ways as circumstances change. But originalists who claim this is what the 2nd amendment was intended to do--to protect an individual's right to possess weapons outside of the militia--are wrong.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
That there was no discussion about it meant that it was not a reason for objection to the new proposed Constitution and thus it was not needed in the Bill or Rights. And that's why it's not there.

I'm actually in favor of using latitude to interpret the words of the Consitution in new ways as circumstances change. But originalists who claim this is what the 2nd amendment was intended to do--to protect an individual's right to possess weapons outside of the militia--are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's for the sake of argument presume you are correct on this point.

If all males of age of that era were considered to be "the militia" (and I think that they were), then the 2nd Amendment was really drawing no meaningful distinction between "the militia" and "the people" (which could also explain how the terms could have been used interchangeably in the 2nd Amendment). If THAT is the case, then the founders simply presumed that "the people" = "the militia"...and vice versa.

It is the vice versa part that provides the sticky burr against your claim that individual rights were not protected, I think.

If "the people" are considered "the militia" I do see your point, but if "the militia" were also considered to be "the people", then the rights of all males of age to keep and bear ought to be considered protected as well. So the fact that the vice versa would have also been considered to be true, would have enlarged the scope of meaning to the greater group, rather than reducing the scope of meaning to the smaller group.

[andyfox]

You're putting way too much into this. Nobody was worried about individual rights to have guns for personal usage. That's why the Bill of Rights did not address this issue. They were worried about the increased power the newly consitutued federal government was going to have over the militia. That's what the amendment was about. That's why it talks about a well-regulated militia.

If one is an originalist, one cannot say that this amendment should confer individuals the right to own guns for personal usage. That's not what it says nor what was intended.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
You're putting way too much into this. Nobody was worried about individual rights to have guns for personal usage. That's why the Bill of Rights did not address this issue. They were worried about the increased power the newly consitutued federal government was going to have over the militia. That's what the amendment was about. That's why it talks about a well-regulated militia.

If one is an originalist, one cannot say that this amendment should confer individuals the right to own guns for personal usage. That's not what it says nor what was intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the supporting documents that other legislatures passed during the time period that clarifies the language? It's quite clear that the Anti-Federalists, who the 2nd amendment was designed to placate, where concerned about individual members of the militia's right to own guns. And since when does individualist mean "not-regulated"? If we acknowledge an individual originalist right to own guns, does it necessarily follow that those rights can't be amended according to societal rules? Because arguing that is frankly false on its face.