D.C. v. HELLER, 17 Democratic House Members, amici curiae support reversal

[jody]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The decision below reads the Second Amendment as creating an individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. In so doing, the decision rendered meaningless the Amendment’s opening clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”), disregarded this Court’s settled precedent limiting the application of the Amendment to those situations where the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is potentially impaired, and failed to evaluate the statutes at issue using standards anything like those ordinarily applied when (unlike here) constitutional rights are implicated.

Under this Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939); Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980)), that provision lends no support to Respondent’s claims, since he does not assert that his desired use or possession of the firearms at issue relates to “the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,”3 and the decision below should be reversed.

Had the Court been presented with a colorable claim that the challenged conduct infringed the “right to keep and bear arms” in a manner inconsistent with the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, this Court’s precedents suggest that judgments about whether the regulation or prohibition of a particular weapon is consistent with the Second Amendment should be left to the political branches. The Constitution’s express assignment of responsibility for the nation’s militia to Congress (see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 & 16), and the absence of “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” for resolving such controversies, militate in favor of such a result. This approach would be in accord with the state of affairs in the decades since Miller was decided. During that time, Congress has legislated actively to regulate or prohibit the use or possession of certain weapons – mindful of any limitations imposed by the Second Amendment, and guided by this Court’s decision in Miller.

Democratic congresspersons signed brief opposing individual RKBA
Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raul M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)

[johnbraun]

1. Bill Clinton said that the Assault Weapons Ban cost us 20 seats in Congress. Here comes another 17.

When will we learn?

:grr:

[Boomer 50]

3. No kidding

How long will it take to learn the gun control is a campaign killer? When gun control became a political platform for many Democrats, I held my head in shame. Any intelligent person would think that the Republicans who like controlling and restricting anything would be the party of gun grabbers but sadly, Democrats wear that badge. It's something I don't get.

[jody]

5. "It's something I don't get" and neither do many Dem voters. n/t

[gorfle]

2. Wow that was painful....

It is hard for me to read that legalese. I think what I am taking from it is that they believe that the 2nd Amendment cannot be for individuals, because it is is for the militia.

My response to this is as it always has been:

1) There is both the Organized and the Unorganized militia. The Organized militia is the National Guard. The Unorganized militia are all other able bodied men aged 17-45 not in the National Guard.

2) The "militia" spoken of in the 2nd Amendment no longer exists, and has not existed since 1903. We must ask ourselves what was the purpose of creating a decentralized military system as the founding fathers did when they enshrined the State Militias in the Constitution. It is clear from contemporary writings that the reason the military was not set up centralized under the federal government was because they feared that such an armed federal government could enforce a tyranny upon The People.

Since the militia, made up of The People of the States, that the founding fathers intended to exist to counterbalance federal military power no longer exits, that power must default to The People themselves if we are to preserve the balance they had the foresight to create.

Anyone who claims that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is saying, in effect, that all military power should be under the control and command of the federal government. This is a dangerous proposition and counter to the intents of the founding fathers.

[jody]

4. Agree re painful. As PA & VT said, RKBA is first for self-defense and second defense of state. Since

SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal problem, people like those 17 Dem congresspersons are derelict by not suggesting what tools or arms a law-abiding citizen can legally use for self-defense.

IMO a handgun is the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense, the choice of 850,000 sworn law enforcement officers.

IMO firearms for self-defense are also reasonable arms for law-abiding citizens to bring with them if called to active duty by a governor or president as the state militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

[beevul]

6. I am ashamed...

"The decision below reads the Second Amendment as creating an individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."


I am ashamed that there are leaders...people of any stripe...that believe that the constitution, or bill of rights creates anything at all.


These people who believe that make me sick.

And I am further ashamed that anyone could take the second amendment which IS a restriction on governmental power, and read it as a restriction on the rights of the people.


Edited for spelling

[jody]

7. I’ve nominated you for the “Augean Stables” stamp award.

[beevul]

8. Lol, thank you Jody.

There are times when I just can't stop my fingers on the keyboard...Unfortunately there are times where I get so disgusted I have to walk away, too. Fortunately it seems there are more of the former, and less of the latter.



It does truly sadden me though, that there are people that believe rights are something that is created granted or bestowed by government.That belief is an affront to liberty in general, and a failure in education IMO. Teaching those things correct and proper should be required in schools.