Gun Owners' Next Major DC Battle--"Bearing" Arms Outside the Home

[TPaine7]

After Heller, the District relaxed its ban on residents seeking “to register a pistol for use in self-defense within that person’s home.” But D.C. law still states that “o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license.” Currently, the city affords no process by which to issue such a license. A first violation of the carry ban is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.

Does the Constitution mandate that the nation’s capital allow firearms to be carried outside the home? The right to bear arms, the court said in Heller, is an “individual right unconnected to militia service.” To “bear” means to “carry.” More specifically, when used with “arms,” the opinion said, “bear” means “carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation.” Nothing in that formulation implies a right that can be exercised only within one’s home.

Indeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, although she dissented in Heller, cited Black’s Law Dictionary to suggest in a prior opinion that the Second Amendment entails a right to “wear, bear, or carry ..... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, ..... armed and ready ..... in a case of conflict with another person.” That language, says Michael O’Shea in the West Virginia Law Review, “reads like a literal description of the practice of lawful concealed carry, as engaged in by millions of Americans in the forty-eight states that authorize the carrying of concealed handguns.”

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/09/gun_owners_next_victory_in_dc.html

This should be interesting. Will the Court sidestep its duty (the most important function of the Court is to protect the rights of citizens, and some of the most fundamental rights are those protected by the Bill of Rights)?

Will Justice Ginsburg agree with herself and admit that "bear" has its obvious historical meaning?

Will our newest Justice live up to her (self) billing and robotically follow the law and recent Supreme Court precedent--that is to say Heller--or will she use legal contortions to avoid the obvious?

I agree with Robert Levy--I think the Court will do the right thing--but I am far from certain. That is why my subject line differs from his article's title. Justices--indeed any government officials--can only be trusted to do the right thing if 1) it is in their personal best interest, 2) it matches their personal beliefs, and 3) it is politically expedient. Those factors COMBINED yield near certainty.

I wish those factors were all present here.

[Tim01]

1. Here we go. This will be big. nt

[imdjh]

2. Why is this so fucking hard for some people to get?

It's an unalienable right (meaning neither some shithole city council or state legislature or Congress itself cannot take it away)

to keep (own)

and bear (carry around)

arms (guns)

No Tuesday rules, no weekends only, no bullshit.

[Treo]

3. hoplophobes

Because they're *hoplophobes who would hate guns no matter what


For those unfamiliar W/ the term here is the Urban Dictionary entry

*hoplophobe
An irrational fear of weapons, generally guns, usually occuring as a result of a liberal upbringing or the fact that the person is just a wimp in general. Rather than deal with the fear said hoplophobe will assign human characteristics to a weapon ie "guns are evil" or "guns kill" to justify the fear rather than deal with the core problem of being a sissy.
Due to his aversion to weapons, all the the police could do for young Seth the hoplophobe was chalk his cold dead body out on the floor as he had no defense for the thug that broke into his one bedroom apartment in San Fran, the policed noted the irony in the fact that the killer had scored three hits in the "O" portion of Seth's OBAMA 08 T-shirt.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term= hoplophobe

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Actually, hoplite means 'tool' not 'weapon', and the definition given is

blatantly homophobic,

so you, and the moron who coined the term, can fuck off.

[Treo]

7. The Moron Who Coined The Term

Was Jeff Cooper. A firearms instructor who was also a former Marine. It is quite possible that he WAS homophobic that's not my business. As for the definition I linked to that's from the Urban Dictionary ( as cited) I'm not responsible for their text

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. If you distribute garbage, you make it your own. nt

[Treo]

13. You Can't Reason W/ A Closed Mind Good Day NT

[Statistical]

12. Actually hoplite means neither

Hoplite was the name of greek infantry of the 7th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite

They were called Hoplite after the name of their shield the hoplon which was very effective for the time period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspis

Technically hoplon refers to the shield however since hoplite was name of infantry unit eventually all the full sets of arms became known as hoplon.

hoplophobia is more accurately "a fear of arms" however since the firearm has effectively replaced all other arms today a hoplophobe is one who is afraid of firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

It has nothing to do with homosexuals.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Technically, the shield, hoplon, derived its name from the word for

tool, and the expansion of definition progressed from there.

And the homophobia is in the accusation, in the given 'definition', that someone who will not own a weapon is a 'sissy' - and we know what THAT means.

ON EDIT:
I will grant that Cooper coined the term, and is not responsible for the homophobic definition given in 'the urban dictionary', which the poster linked to.

[rd_kent]

40. Actually, a hoplite was a greek soldier.

so where you come up with the idea that it is somehow homophobic make you the moron. Perhaps you should fuck off instead?

[Euromutt]

45. A "hoplite" is a Greek heavy infantryman, "one who uses hopla"

See, "tool" or "instrument" are indeed meanings of the word hoplon (ὅπλον), but the word also means "instrument of warfare," i.e. weapon or piece of armor (shield, helmet, breastplate, greaves). A hoplite possessed a panoply, that is, pan-hopla (πάν-ὅπλα, lit. "all weapons"), a complete set of arms and armor.

Hoplon is indeed the best available ancient Greek word for "weapon" without getting into specific types like swords and spears.

[Euromutt]

46. Treo, be advised the H-word is frowned upon by the mods (n/t)

[Katya Mullethov]

57. How about hoplophile ?

Is that one OK ?


Inbred and ignorant redneck racist hillbilly hoplophile would be OK wouldnt it ?

[Hoopla Phil]

72. Nope. That is a no no word here too. I can PM you if you have further questions.

[Treo]

76. Thanks Euro, didn't know. Won't use it again NT

[Statistical]

78. I may be wrong (mods correct me if I am) but.

my understanding is that it is against the rules to call a member of DU a hoplophobe just as it would be to "diagnose" them with any mental disorder.

However hoplophobes and hoplophobia does exist.

The word itself is not banned but using it against a member of DU is.

Not everyone who wants to ban guns is a hoplophobes and not every hoplophobes want to ban guns.

[TPaine7]

4. It isn't hard--it's impossible.

There are people who go in knowing the answer. They KNOW that guns are bad. They KNOW that they only cause harm in the hands of people not employed and controlled by the state. They KNOW that results of widespread gun ownership will be blood in the streets.

They know this in the same way that you know that 1 + 1 = 2.

When they read the Constitution, they see immediately that it cannot mean what it appears to say. It must mean that states are entitled to have militias. Or that state militias have a right to be armed. Or that militia members have a right to be armed while on duty in order to carry out the state's orders. Or that militias must be well organized. Or...

It cannot, it MUST not mean that the people have the right to bear arms--a right that government cannot infringe.

They KNOW this before they examine any evidence.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. So the 'well regulated militia' that is mentioned is just a figment of the imagination

and is therefore rightfully ignored?

[TPaine7]

8. The Amendment says nothing whatsoever about

the right of the militia to be armed or about the right of states to have militias.

No the "well-regulated militia" language should not be ignored. You may spend infinite time and effort reflecting on the OBSERVATION that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. More power to you.

Don't ignore that OBSERVATION by any means.

On the other hand, neither Federal, nor state, nor local government has any legitimate power to violate the COMMAND of the Constitution that the RIGHT of the militia PEOPLE to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

[imdjh]

11. applause nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Why aren't there other such 'observations' sprinkled throughout the

constitution.

Amendment I
Religious wars are bad; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Amendment III
Nobody likes uninvited guests; no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...

Amendment IV
Privacy, being essential to the rational conduct of the individual, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

IT WAS PUT THERE FOR A REASON.

The constitution does not require 'filler' material.

[TPaine7]

53. Why aren't there other such 'observations' sprinkled throughout the Constitution?

(Note the capitalization of "Constitution" and the question mark at the end--highly recommended for someone relying on his or her expertise in English grammar.)

Here's an observation:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

That should definitely not be ignored either. It is not filler material. It was put there for a reason.

That reason IS NOT to provide excuses to override the clear COMMANDS of the Constitution. To make such arguments is to twist the Constitution to meet one's preconceptions. It's positively Bushean:

One purpose of the Constitution is to "provide for the common defense." According to Bush, to provide for the common defense, it was necessary to spy on the American people--to make them insecure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. He used the common defense objective to justify violating a direct command. Now he didn't quote the preamble; if he had, it wouldn't have made his arguments any more--or any less--legitimate.

Another example is violating a ratified treaty and inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment" by waterboarding. With the same excuse, too--the common defense.

The obvious intent of the founders was that government provide for the common defense WHILE obeying the explicit COMMANDS of the Constitution. They didn't intend that the common defense be used as an excuse to allow torture and illegal spying.

The obvious intent of the founders was that government provide for a well-regulated militia WHILE obeying the explicit COMMANDS of the Constitution. Obviously they didn't intend that the well-regulated militia be used as an excuse to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. The constitution does not have commandments.

It lays the framework of US law; it commands nothing.

That is a VERY authoritarian way of seeing things. Not surprising for a gun fanatic.

[TPaine7]

60. That is a VERY weasely way of dodging my points. Not surprising for an anti-gun fanatic.

The constitution does not have commandments.

You should address this to someone else. I said nothing about "commandments."

...it {the Constitution} commands nothing.

Are you a native English speaker?

com⋅mand
  /kəˈmænd, -ˈmɑnd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
Use command in a Sentence
See web results for command
See images of command
–verb (used with object)
1. to direct with specific authority or prerogative; order: The captain commanded his men to attack.
2. to require authoritatively; demand: She commanded silence.
3. to have or exercise authority or control over; be master of; have at one's bidding or disposal: The Pharaoh commanded 10,000 slaves.
4. to deserve and receive (respect, sympathy, attention, etc.): He commands much respect for his attitude.
5. to dominate by reason of location; overlook: The hill commands the sea.
6. to have authority over and responsibility for (a military or naval unit or installation); be in charge of.
–verb (used without object)
7. to issue an order or orders.
8. to be in charge; have authority.
9. to occupy a dominating position; look down upon or over a body of water, region, etc.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/command

The Constitution most definitely commands, by several definitions of the word.

That is a VERY authoritarian way of seeing things.

Are you an American?! The Constitution is VERY authoritative. All branches of government, all officers, all Justices, all of Congress, all Presidents swear to uphold it. It is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. That does not cease to be so because you don't like what it says.

Your points were clearly and cleanly refuted but instead of acknowledging that fact and perhaps making new or revised arguments, you went for this feeble diversion. I suspect you will continue to make the same refuted arguments over and over again in other threads.

It's boring.

Why can't I find an honest gun rights opponent who will debate with integrity?

[paulsby]

63. there are honest gun rights opponents, like larry tribe

but few here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. Oh, come on. How does the constitution 'command' by ANY of those

nine points of definition?

And do you not know the difference between 'authoritative' and 'authoritarian'?

BTW, who says I am a gun rights opponent?

Typically for authoritarians, if I am not 100% behind what you say, I must therefore be absolutely opposed to gun rights.

It is not guns that I oppose. Nor is it gun owners, or sport shooters, or hunters, or persons with legitimate need for self defense that I oppose.

It is gun fanatics and idiots with guns that I oppose.

Like the moron whose stray bullet killed a 19 year old coed in Atlanta yesterday, when he opened up during a brawl at a party.

But before he did that, he was just another guy exercising his constitutional rights. But the gun fanatics will not listen to ANY real debate on how to restrict persons like that from getting their hands on tools designed for killing.

[TPaine7]

67. Yawn.

How does the constitution 'command' by ANY of those nine points of definition?

You're being very silly or obstinate now, so I think this will be my last post on this subthread.

Try this: The Second Amendment "direct{s} with specific authority" that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The fact that you can read that definition in the context of this discussion and not realize that it fits perfectly says very clearly and emphatically that you are a gun rights opponent. It has nothing whatever to do with me, or with my position.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. It is just a statement of what the law is - and open for interpretation, obviously,

as it has been debated for decades. And by my interpretation, it says that the militia shall not be infringed (as the British repeatedly did, to hinder the colonies arming against the crown - remember Concord and Lexington? Infringement of the militia - they were raiding militia armories).

1. to direct with specific authority or prerogative; order: The captain commanded his men to attack.

I've never seen the constitution stand up and give orders.

Now, I personally believe, as I have stated elsewhere on this thread and others, that individuals SHOULD have a right to own and keep firearms, though subject to fairly strict guidelines, both on the persons possessing them and on the types of firearms in question. This is based on English common law. I also would have no objection at all to amending the constitution to say so. It just does not say so now.

Looking at the historical debates on the 2nd amendment, they virtually ALL are concerned with the organization of the militia, the role the militia was supposed to play, and what authority the federal government had over the militia. That individuals should have firearms was such a given it was not even discussed, for the most part. It would be like guaranteeing fish the right to swim.

Do you believe there should be laws restricting automatic weapons? Personal ownership of artillery? How can you justify those laws, and not see a correlation with restricting high capacity magazines that allow a gunman to put 60 rounds on target in under a minute? Why should 100rd drums be illegal, but restricting 30rd magazines be a gross violation of the constitution?

BTW, not that it matters, but I qualified expert with both the M-16 and .45 when I was in the Marines - and haven't fired a weapon since I got out, 35 years ago. I could no more love a gun than I could a hammer.

[Treo]

74. Do you believe

Do you believe there should be laws restricting automatic weapons?
No

Personal ownership of artillery?
There already is

How can you justify those laws, and not see a correlation with restricting high capacity magazines that allow a gunman to put 60 rounds on target in under a minute? Why should 100rd drums be illegal, but restricting 30rd magazines be a gross violation of the constitution?

As a former Marine you should know that the size of the magazine is irrelevant I can change magazines in less than a second. I would however like to see the gunman that can fire more than 60 aimed rounds a minute

[Statistical]

77. Reread history. The founders were most certainly concern about the PEOPLE having arms.

The crown didn't seize weapons from the militia...... they seized weapons from the people. They went door to door and disarmed PEOPLE of their PERSONAL weapons. Weapons that could be used in a militia. The British troops didn't check for allegiance to a militia before seizing arms they seized arms from EVERYONE.

During most of the period that British troops were committing violations of the colonists rights (arms, assembly, taxation, trial) the MILITIAS HADN'T EVEN ASSEMBLED!

Why weren't they assembled? Because cooler heads wanted to give diplomacy a chance. Most colonists considered themselves citizens of the crown they didn't want independence they simply wanted their rights preserved. Organizing militia against English troops would lead to violence and a strike against the crown can't be undone.

English citizens had a right under common law to keep arms. The king had no authority morally or legally to seize firearms from THE PEOPLE but guess what HE DID ANYWAYS. So while the idea of the people having firearms is like a "fish being in water" apparently a guarantee of that right was necessary. The right existed but the King trampled it anyways. The promise of the crown turned out to be useless huh.

From the founders perspective any "protection" only for the militia would be useless. If the govt could seize personally owned firearms there WOULDN'T BE A MILITIA! They based this both on their existing English common rights and the history they had been through.

[Euromutt]

80. The answer lies in the Militia Act of 1792

We're talking about an Act of Congress passed a year after the ratification of the Second Amendment. The Act required every potential militiaman to privately own his weapon and equipment. Not to report to a (state) government armory when required and have it issued to him; no, to have a weapon and equipment paid for out of the militiaman's own pocket, to be kept in his own home.

The behavior of the colonial government of Massachusetts at the time of Lexington and Concord was of a nature that fifteen years later would arguably have been unconstitutional (not an issue at the time, as the Constitution had yet to be drafted). The weapons kept in militia armories were for the most part private property, seized by the colonial government without due process, to be distributed on basis of military necessity (with those designated "minutemen" issued the better weapons). In the circumstances, it was certainly expedient, though creating centralized stockpiles did bring with it the risk that the British could conceivably have disarmed a fair number of militia simply by seizing an armory (which is exactly what the British attempted to do).

It certainly did set a historical precedent for the later behavior of the attitude of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts toward private ownership of firearms, which is to say, it seems to regard it as something the citizens can do only at the sufferance of the government.

[paulsby]

62. it's not uncommon

read the 1842 RI constitution for example, a perfect analog to the federal 2nd amendment...

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . .

here's a hint. the right belongs to ANY person, not THE PRESS

similarly, in the 2nd (read them side by side) the right belongs to THE PEOPLE, not THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

prefatory clauses. an interesting historical phraseology.

[SteveM]

79. Thanks. You beat me to it. (nt)

[Treo]

9. The Militia Clause

A well regulate militia being necessary to the security of a free state,is a clause it explains the reasoning for the next line The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can remove the clause from the sentence W/out changing the meaning of the sentence.
Here is one of the best explanations I've ever heard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50&feature=related

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Put in the commas that are included in the constitution and you have a

different reading:

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.

A well regulated militia, (deleted explanation), (deleted definition), shall not be infringed.

The constitution does not say 'An unorganized militia shall not be infringed'; the unorganized milita being healthy and morally sound males 17 to 45. It specifies 'well regulated militia'.

I'll check out your youtube link when I'm on a different computer, later.

'Bearing arms' in 18th century lingo, meant serving in the military. Now, it DOES say 'keep' as well, meaning if you are a member of the militia you are entitled to keep the weaponry at your home rather than in a public arsenal, as was a common custom of the time as well.

That makes the amendment more like the Swiss arrangement where the registered milita keep their government issued weapons at their homes.

The vast majority of the signers of the constitution we highly educated men who knew not only English, but French, Latin and Greek as well - they knew about grammatical construction, and the commas placed in the constitution are all there because they were meant to be there. They knew what they meant to say. They were fully aware of what a parenthetical clause was and if they meant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed" they'd have written it that way.

And I don't care what the RW hacks on the supreme court say - they ALSO said that Bush won the election. I didn't believe them then, either.

No explanations are necessary in the constitution. Does the 4th amendment explain WHY people have a right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects? Since explanations are NOT necessary, and are not used anywhere else in the BOR, why would the 'militia' mention be merely an explanation of why people are allowed to keep guns? Wouldn't it have been simpler for the entire 2nd amendment to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

But it doesn't say that. It says something else entirely. It says "A well regulated Militia...shall not be infringed." "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."

Personally, I think that people SHOULD have the right to own weapons, within reasonable restrictions based on criminal behavior. But that is not what the constitution says.

[Statistical]

18. Wrong and wrong.

Put in the commas that are included in the constitution and you have a different reading
The 2nd amendment ratified by the states did not have the first comma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

While there are other "versions" in various texts the only one that has legal weight is the one actually ratified and that does NOT have a comma after militia.

'Bearing arms' in 18th century lingo, meant serving in the military. Now, it DOES say 'keep' as well, meaning if you are a member of the militia you are entitled to keep the weaponry at your home rather than in a public arsenal, as was a common custom of the time as well.

Really? So no where will we find the words "bear arms" to mean anything but military service?

Well lets look at some EASILY verifiable sources:
Alabama Constitution: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Connecticut Constitution: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Delaware Constitution: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Maine Constitution: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

New Hampshire Constitution: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Well it sure as hell looks like bear arms means more than "military service".

Lets try replacing bear arms with both "military service" and with "carry" see which works better.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
A person has the right to keep and <use> arms <in military service> for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
A person has the right to keep and carry arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

How the flying crap does one use arms in military service for hunting or recreation? Or for that matter to defense self or family?

[Statistical]

54. sure is quiet in here.

Sometimes I think some of the "antis" are really pro RKBA because they throw such amazing softballs like "bear arms" ONLY means military service.

<CRACK> and out of the park....... WOOO HOOO!

Then I realize no most people simply never research anything. Some anti said it so it is assumed to be gospel and it spreads until it runs up against some obscure texts like say 21 of the State Constitutions! :)

[X_Digger]

19. Arguing intent based on commas..

.. is like arguing the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. You failed English class, didn't you. nt

[X_Digger]

22. Struck a nerve, did I?

RI Constitution- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the person charged. "

Are people only protected to publish sentiments related to the security of freedom?

[TPaine7]

25. I think, using the method used elsewhere

that perhaps that boils down as follows:

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the person charged.

=

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state shall be sufficient defense to the person charged.

Or,

The liberty of the press shall be sufficient defense to the person charged.

Yeah, that's it!

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. I don't get it. You have a problem with the grammatical construction

of that statement?

That seems very plain and well laid out, to me.

That paragraph in no way resembles the construction of the 2nd amendment.

If you had passed HS grammar you'd know that.

[X_Digger]

28. *snort*

If you can't see it, you're either being intentionally obtuse, or it's not _my_ English credentials that need to be questioned.

The prefatory clause construction isn't used very often these days, but there are plenty of historical examples.

Regarding commas- notice in the quoted RI constitution text that comma placement isn't what we would consider standard. Spelling and grammar weren't as codified as they are today. To hang your hat on comma placement when there was no standard of punctuation extant at the time- well, that's just silly.

Maybe you should develop a time travel machine and send back a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style so that they can get it right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Actually, the comma placement in the RI example makes perfect sense.

It is very clear what is linked to what, and what part of the sentence clarifies or explicates what other part.

That said, 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' does not say exactly the same thing as 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.'.

And the fact is that even with the comma eliminated, making the two phrases a single prefatory phrase, it is not duplicated anywhere else in the constitution, laid out in such a manner. Looking at the document holistically, it is an outlier grammatically. But, with the commas in place, there is nothing about the construction that is not in keeping with the rest of the document.

So, you can have your opinion.

And I will be right.

[Statistical]

33. You keep using the version that was not ratified over the one that was ratified.

Since you ignored my wrong & wrong post I will repost it here. I doubt you will respond but I do it with the intent that others see you are using a version NOT RATIFIED by the states.

The exact version ratified by the states (only version legally binding) is:
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.

--------------------

Put in the commas that are included in the constitution and you have a different reading
The 2nd amendment ratified by the states did not have the first comma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Un...

While there are other "versions" in various texts the only one that has legal weight is the one actually ratified and that does NOT have a comma after militia.

'Bearing arms' in 18th century lingo, meant serving in the military. Now, it DOES say 'keep' as well, meaning if you are a member of the militia you are entitled to keep the weaponry at your home rather than in a public arsenal, as was a common custom of the time as well.

Really? So no where will we find the words "bear arms" to mean anything but military service?

Well lets look at some EASILY verifiable sources:
Alabama Constitution: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Connecticut Constitution: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Delaware Constitution: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Maine Constitution: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

New Hampshire Constitution: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Well it sure as hell looks like bear arms means more than "military service".

Lets try replacing bear arms with both "military service" and with "carry" see which works better.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
A person has the right to keep and <use> arms <in military service> for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
A person has the right to keep and <carry> arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

How the flying crap does one use arms in military service for hunting or recreation? Or for that matter to defense self or family?

[paulsby]

65. epic fail

he is using the UNratified 2nd amendment text to argue against the RATIFIED 2nd amendment text.
the mind boggles.

nice job

[X_Digger]

34. Have fun with that..

Trying to interpret historical writing based on current rules of grammar and punctuation is about as valid as trying to deconstruct the illiad into a treatise on the futility of communism in a post-capitalist world.

If you try to interpret the second amendment without context- without knowledge (or acknowledgement) of rules (or lack thereof) for grammar at that time, without looking at the other writings by the authors for their opinions on the issue, without looking at other similar documents from the same time period to compare for construction and meaning- then you're either being intentionally ignorant or you're trying to frame the issue to meet the conclusion you've already reached.

Next you're going to tell me that 'bear' was only in military service, regardless of other state constitutions at that time.. oh wait. LOL!


eta typo fix

[paulsby]

64. and by the antigunners reading of the 2nd

the RI 1842 constitution only protects the right of "THE PRESS" ***not*** "any person***

do they honestly (lol) believe that this constitution was only meant to protect the right of THE PRESS and not ANY PERSON to publish sentiments?

[beevul]

41. You passed english class?

Mkay.

What does this mean:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

http://billofrights.org/


Mentions declaratory clauses, and restrictive clauses.

Can you identyify one of each in the following? :

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.



Game over.

[Euromutt]

47. As it happens, I took French, Latin and Greek in school as well

The school in question being a Dutch "gymnasium" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_%28school%29#Dutch_Gymnasiums), by the way.

From what I recollect, most original Latin and Greek tests I ever read were conspicuously lacking in commas. Grammatical construction largely obviated the need for fixed formulas in sentence construction and punctuation. Full stops and question marks formed about the whole of punctuation, with capitalization all too often added by a 20th-century editor. When translating a Greek or Latin sentence, the first thing you look for is the verb, which could be anywhere.

But it doesn't say that. It says something else entirely. It says "A well regulated Militia...shall not be infringed."

That's implausible, to put it mildly, because that means that those same guys who were so conscious of French, Latin and Greek grammar inserted a clause--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"--that doesn't make any grammatical sense. It doesn't have a verb, it's not connected to any of the other clauses, it's just hanging there.

And how the hell do you "infringe a militia," anyway?

[Treo]

75. For that to work

You have to believe that the second amendment was written to keep the government from disarming itself

[Statistical]

14. Try this one on....

A well stocked pantry being necessary for the creation of fine cuisine, the right of the chef to buy and store ingredients shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to buy ingredients?
The pantry?
The Cuisine?

No of course not it is the chef.

The first clause merely explains the reasoning why a chef should be able to keep ingredients.
To someone reading this for the first time 1000 years later they wouldn't be confused as to WHY a chef is allowed to buy ingredients.

In modern English we would switch the other and use the word BECAUSE.

The right of the chef to buy and store ingredients shall not be infringed because a well stocked pantry being necessary for the creation of fine cuisine.

----------------------------

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.

So who has the right?
The free state? No
The militia? No
The People? DING DING DING we have a winner.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is the reason, the rational, the explanation to future generations.

If we were to write it today we would write it like:
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Please, see my comments, #15, above. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. You will, of course, be sending, polite notes to the states in post #18,

correcting their improper interpretation of 'bear arms'

Do report back and tell us how well that goes over.

kthxbye

[divideandconquer]

21. HERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE, WORST MURDER RATE IN WESTERN WORLD

Even worse than poor nations like India or Dominica.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

[TPaine7]

23. Evidence of what, exactly?

Of what the words of the Second Amendment mean?

Please show your work.

[divideandconquer]

24. EVIDENCE OF BLOOD IN THE STREET

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS BARBARISM PURE AND SIMPLE.

[TPaine7]

27. I trust you are not being held in America against your will.

If you are an imprisoned convict, your antipathy to armed victims is easy to understand. Otherwise, you are free to leave at any time.

Alternately, you can work to amend the Constitution.

Either way, I wish you all the luck you deserve.

[divideandconquer]

29. IF I COULD AFFORD TO MOVE I WOULD

EUROPE, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, ALL HAVE HIGHER QUALITY OF LIFE AT THIS POINT. "ARMED VICTIMS", YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

[Statistical]

31. If you can't afford a keyboard without a stuck caps lock key I will give you one. n/t

[divideandconquer]

35. i LIKE CAPS

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? SHOOT ME?

[Statistical]

36. Yup that is what all gun owners do.

I have an Obama approved death panel on the way to your house.

You get to chose the caliber though, we aren't barbarians.

[iverglas]

71. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting

Nobody NEEDS to type in all capitals, do they??

But dog damn it, they have a RIGHT to do it!!

So you should probably keep your opinions to yourself.

Have I got that right?

[Treo]

38. Don't Let The Door Hit Ya Where The Good Lord Split Ya NT

[PavePusher]

42. Hah. I lived in the U.K. for 7 1/2 years.

You are wrong.

But I will gladly contribute to your one-way ticket.

[iverglas]

56. "you are wrong"?

Well there you go. Nuff said.

:rofl:


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf

53 shooting homicides in England/Wales last year. Down 6 from the previous year.

Of course, that's not how "quality of life" is measured ... that would include things like access to health care ... but I just thought I'd toss it in.

[PavePusher]

69. well, since I was actually responding to...

his "higher standard of living" comment, you have missed your mark.

Good night.

[iverglas]

70. well, since you didn't actually respond to anything

the field was kinda open.

"You are wrong" ... nope, not a response ...

[FunkyLeprechaun]

86. I have lived in the UK for nearly 4 years

And believe me, the standard of living here in the UK is better than the US. Lower infant mortality rates, longer lifespan etc. We get more holiday than the average worker in the US as well.

Do you live in a part of the UK that's crap? I live in Staffordshire and it's not as nice as say, Cambridgeshire (ie house prices in Staffs are lower than those in Cambs). Or are you talking about Northern Ireland where you have to keep your mouth shut on religious issues or risk getting shot? Well, it's a much better place than where it was in the nineties and a bit more open.

[raimius]

61. If you want to

If you really want to move, but can't afford it, I'll throw in $20.
New Zealand actually sounds like a beautiful country. Switzerland is pretty nice too.
Oddly, Switzerland has a VERY high rate of full-auto firearm ownership, but fairly low crime rates. Could it be cultural?

(Type in all caps if you want. It doesn't make your argument any better.)

[iverglas]

55. "you are free to leave at any time"

You folks at all familiar with the concepts of citizenship, state sovereignty, ... ?

Is one "free to leave" if one has nowhere to go?

Is "America: love it or leave it" actually Democratic tradition?

[Tim01]

37. No, it's evidence America can be a violent place.

Especially in New York City, Chicago, and D.C.

[Treo]

39. Now those places can't be all THAT violent

Don't you know they all have STRICT gun control laws?

[divideandconquer]

50. None of those cities are even in the top twenty for violence in 2008

<http://www.infoplease.com/us/cities/safest-dangerous-cities.html>

[X_Digger]

52. CQPress doesn't list how they rank that..

Based on the preliminary data from FBI's UCR
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/index.html)
 here's the worst cities (>100k pop) for various
categories-

Rate = # of crimes * 100k / population

Murder
------
LOUISIANA, NEW ORLEANS	63.60
MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS	46.88
MARYLAND, BALTIMORE	36.88
MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON	36.05
ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM	35.92
MICHIGAN, DETROIT	33.78
LOUISIANA, BATON ROUGE	29.53
CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND	28.64
MICHIGAN, FLINT		28.20
CALIFORNIA, RICHMOND	26.55

Violent Crime
-------------
MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS		2,073
MICHIGAN, FLINT			2,024
CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND		1,968
MICHIGAN, DETROIT		1,924
TENNESSEE, MEMPHIS		1,924
FLORIDA, ORLANDO		1,666
MARYLAND, BALTIMORE		1,589
CALIFORNIA, STOCKTON		1,475
PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA	1,441
OHIO, CLEVELAND			1,427

Rape 
----
MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS		97.4
OHIO, CLEVELAND			95.9
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE		93.9
ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM		92.8
MICHIGAN, FLINT			90.7
COLORADO, COLORADO SPRINGS	88.5
PENNSYLVANIA, ERIE		84.7
CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND		84.1
SOUTH DAKOTA, SIOUX FALLS	83.8
MICHIGAN, LANSING		83.0


Property Crime
--------------
MISSOURI, SPRINGFIELD		9357
UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY		8951
ALABAMA, BIRMINGHAM		8783
FLORIDA, ORLANDO		8573
MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS		8546
TENNESSEE, MEMPHIS		8007
ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK		7981
NORTH CAROLINA, FAYETTEVILLE	7873
GEORGIA, COLUMBUS	 	7806
WASHINGTON, TACOMA		7647

[Euromutt]

48. You know what's odd, though?

The U.S. non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rates of quite a few other countries. Even if you could make all the guns in America disappear, and even if all the homicides that used to be committed with guns ceased to take place, the U.S. would still have a higher homicide rate than, say, the Netherlands or France.

So maybe the problem is that the United States is, for some reason other than firearms, a more homicidal society than others. Maybe it's because it has a more ethnically and cultural heterogenous population, higher levels of socio-economic inequality, and a criminal justice system that has practically no interest in rehabilitating offenders.

Just a thought.

[Statistical]

49. Add to that poor mental health system, failing social safety net, and

a socio-economic situation that often results in a large number of "damaged" children that get abused mentally & physically for years then bounce from one failed foster placement to another before become adult offenders at alarming rates.

My wife works with high risk children & teens. Many of the teens have symptoms of anti-social personality disorder. While aspd can be worked on in younger children the teenagers are often beyond the point of no return. If they haven't learned to "attach" to loved ones or have empathy by the time they are teenagers they likely (99.9%) never will.

That sets them up for failure as if the lack of family support, poor education, and lacks of means don't already set them up. They end up violent criminals in alarming numbers.
Now you combine criminal activity with someone who has no empathy (for you or even for themselves) and you have a huge problem.

Of course solving all this is VERY complex, expensive and even if we started today in earnest would likely take two or three generations.

BAN GUNS is a far simpler (albeit useless) answer.

[divideandconquer]

51. It's not odd that a nation that worships firearms like a religion would be violent

The 2nd amendment enshrines violence as a preeminent value in America.

[Treo]

58. No, It enshrines freedom as a preeminent value in America NT

[Euromutt]

73. Congratulations on missing my point entirely

Yes, that's right: the U.S. non-gun homicide rate is comparatively high because the U.S. "worships firearms like a religion." A third of American homicide victims are killed by means other than a firearm because the U.S. "worships firearms like a religion."

Were you born with this little critical thinking ability, or did you have to work at it?

[proteus_lives]

43. There's no reason D.C. residents shouldn't have CCW rights.

[eallen]

81. The court will side with local laws and ordinances controlling carry

There millions of acres in the US where you can legally carry a gun. The right to bear doesn't mean the right to bear <i>everywhere</i>. There were laws restricting this from the earliest days of the Republic. Don't expect that to change much.

[TPaine7]

82. DC's local laws do not *control* carry, they forbid it.

1) Unless you have a license, you cannot carry outside the home.
2) You cannot have a license.

This is not like saying that you can't carry on a tour of the White House, or in the Capitol building, or on the Mall. It's saying that if you live in the District, you can't carry in your own front yard. You can't carry while visiting your neighbor across the street. The ONLY reason you can legally carry a gun from one room of your house to another or legally use it in self-defense is that the Supreme Court forced the despots running DC to allow it.

You say that "{t}he right to bear doesn't mean the right to bear <i>everywhere</i>." This is true, of course. It does not follow that the District is within its legitimate powers to ban the carrying of guns anywhere in the entire city.

Your logic appears to be either incompletely elucidated or faulty. The First Amendment doesn't protect all religious practices or all speech, true, but that fact does not justify a local law forbidding prayer.

[eallen]

83. Only inside the district. American cities have done so from colonial days.

There's nothing unusual in the notion that hunters, militias, and others who want to carry guns on their person must do so outside of town. Those who think the Constitution guarantees a right to carry guns <i>inside cities</i> are bucking history. The court will rule with DC on this one. Banning gun ownership or possession in your home is quite different from banning carry in the city.

:hippie:

[TPaine7]

84. American history also "supports" gross violation of other rights, including the right to

free speech. The Alien and Sedition Acts, signed by President John Adams would--if history is the definitive guide to constitutionality--largely justify George W. Bush.

There were actually four separate laws making up what is commonly referred to as the "Alien and Sedition Acts"

1. The Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566) extended the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
2. The Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.
3. The Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21–24. At the time, war was considered likely between the U.S. and France.
4. The Sedition Act (officially An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition

And here's some of the text of the Sedition Act:

Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service..

Section 4

When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or concern is using the mails in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person or concern to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed, with the words "Mail to this address undeliverable under Espionage Act" plainly written or stamped upon the outside thereof, and all such letters or other matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the senders thereof under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

Besides the abuses of our second President, the history of the Japanese internment camps is clearly established. If these abuses were constitutional--by virtue of being historical fact--how can we condemn Bush and Cheney?

Read the historic Supreme Court decisions. I have. I saw nothing to indicate that there was an exception for cities. Read the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, where the framers were explicit in their intent to extend the RKBA to the freed slaves so that they could defend themselves--which would have been useless if they could only defend themselves at home and the lynch mob could grab them whenever they went into town for supplies.

Dodge city and others acted unconstitutionally. The fact that history reveals ancient, widespread, or high level rights violations doesn't change the meaning of the Constitution as written.

Locking people up because of their racial or national background is wrong--a fundamental miscarriage of justice. So is banning speech against the President or the government. So is denying a person the right to the most effective means to defend herself because she is in your city (and not in her home).

[TPaine7]

85. Only inside the District...

How modest. They only ban bearing arms in their territory? They don't ban guns in, say, Montana or Georgia?

Congress has the constitutional authority to strip the District of all local gun laws. If the Supreme Court ducks the case, Congress should exercise their constitutional authority and write decent gun laws. The District has shown its contempt for the human right of self-defense by banning the use of functional guns while one is under assault in one's own home. I talked a little about that here:

To summarize, the District‟s position is that you must pay taxes for police who have no duty to protect
you.{54} You may possess long guns, but they must always be kept in a useless condition, even when you are
under attack. To meet Heller’s legal challenge, the District now maintains that there is a self-defense
exception—a position they have previously defeated in court. Under this newly adopted position, a person
under immediate attack is allowed to assemble or unlock their weapon and load it. D.C. desires that the
Supreme Court should not address this “reasonable” law, still on the books, nor the legal precedent set by
the District‟s victory, but should take the District at its word on its future enforcement.

So let‟s take them at their word (for the sake of discussion only).

A law-abiding woman lives alone. She keeps a long gun as allowed in the District. At 2:00 AM, a drug
dealer breaks into her house and the race starts. She must awaken from a dead sleep, remove the lock (or
assemble the gun!), retrieve the ammunition, load the gun, and bring it into position in time to protect
herself.

Absent Special Forces training, this is a very tall order.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607

The government that set up that scheme isn't fit to write gun laws.