New D.C. gun laws upheld

[TPaine7]

A federal judge in Washington, applying the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision creating a constitutional right to have a gun, ruled on Friday that three new gun control restrictions in the Nation’s capital city survive a Second Amendment challenge. In the ruling by U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, the District of Columbia government’s laws requiring that guns be registered and banning assault weapons and large-capacity bullet-feeding devices are valid. The case is Heller, et al., v. District of Columbia (District Court docket 08-1289); the opinion can be found here. (The lead individual in the case, government security guard Dick Anthony Heller, is the same District resident who won the Supreme Court case with the same title in 2008.)

Such gun control laws, the judge ruled, are to be subjected to constitutional analysis using an “intermediate” level of review — that is, a challenged law will be upheld if it is “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” Courts around the country have differed on what level of review should apply to gun regulation, and that issue thus is a likely one for future Supreme Court analysis. The Justices did not lay down a standard in 2008, other than to say it would take more than simple “reasonable” justification to satisfy the Second Amendment.

...

In deciding how to weigh challenges in the new District laws, the judge noted that the Supreme Court had not placed gun rights in the category that gets the greatest constitutional protection — that is, rights that are deemed to be “fundamental.” The judge remarked: “If the Supreme Court had wanted to declare the Second Amendment a fundamental right, it would have done so explicitly.” Moreover, he added, declaring gun rights to be fundamental could not be squared with the Supreme Court’s remarks that some forms of regulation would remain valid.

...

The judge said that these regulations do implicate the Second Amendment right to defend one’s self in the home, but that they are justified as ways for local officials to monitor gun use, track guns used in crimes, and allow prosecution for failing to register.

...

The new law provides a list of what it considers to be assault weapons, including pistols, rifles and shotguns, or guns that have military-style features such as use of a magazine that can be detached.

The judge concluded that these weapons are not in common use, are not possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule, and are dangerous. Thus, the judge ruled, they are outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Thus, Urbina said, there was no need to weigh their constitutionality. If intermediate scrutiny were applied, however, the judge said the ban would satisfy that standard because the ban is keyed to public safety.

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/new-d-c-gun-laws-upheld/#more-17880

So "...these regulations... are justified as ways for local officials to ...allow prosecution for failing to register"?

If this is a accurate representation of the judge's reasoning, he reasons like a lot of gun control advocates on this site. Circularly.

And he accepted blatantly false "findings" from lying government thugs. Just like courts have done for decades on this subject to reach the "correct" results. So-called assault weapons ARE in common use, ARE possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule.

He needs a stinging backhand to the kisser, and I hope the Supreme Court delivers it. Blatant government lies and corruption in order to achieve gun control goals, sacrificing all pretense of objectivity, and defying reality will not work. Everyone is watching and people aren't fooled by this stuff anymore.

[msongs]

1. criminals have a constitutional right to carry guns on airplanes - not prevented by 2nd amendment nt

[TPaine7]

8. No, but you definitely have a right to post clueless inanities

online defended by the First Amendment.

Just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Repeatedly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Oh, DO tell us please, if only for the mutant value of listening to you.

n/t

[midnight]

2. Who in their right mine starts relaxing gun laws, while the insurnance industry is

pumping the country with some tainted tea bags....

[SteveM]

22. Are you drinking or smoking those teabags? nt

[sharesunited]

3. The route in suppressing gun profileration must be in closing down trade.

The right to keep and bear is different from the right to engage in commerce.

Take this route and you will do better in combating the gun and ammo menace.

Do it now, and do it strongly.

You have the zoning laws at your absolute service.

[cowman]

4. Dumb as a solution to dumb

100 points awarded

[sharesunited]

7. Thanks for the points! You have been hijacked for an anti gun purpose.

Pro guns and pro ammunition. Let's put it to bed. There is no right to engage in any kind of commerce involving gun and commerce. So please take up machine shop gunsmithing because that is what you must be whittled down to and as soon as possible.

[cowman]

10. You poor poor

person, you really are delusional.

There is NO state willing to do that now and not in the foreseeable future so go get a glass of milk and some cookies and go watch nickelodeum

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. And we'd need East German-style border controls to make your fantasy a reality.

Otherwise, those alternative pharmacutical wholesalers now importing heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine will be
adding firearms to their product lines.

[cowman]

6. Uhhhhh

last time that was tried it was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS when congress tried to use the commerce clause to ban guns within 1000 feet of schools
minus 100 points for a total of 0 points

[sharesunited]

9. What you have observed is a misconstruction of the Court.

Really? The Gore v. Bush Court? No, those are some misguided individuals.

[cowman]

11. Really doesn't matter

what you think or perceive does it, the SCOTUS ruled, end of story

[proteus_lives]

12. Standard non-logic from sharesunited. Zero pointed awarded.

[Pavulon]

21. Better ban cnc tools and g code

you can download the "procedure" and start milling high quality weapons in a very short time. The tools we use to make rotors and stators are far superior to those used to make firearms. I wonder what a truly blueprinted AK can do. I always thought they shot like shit because they are made sloppy.

I wonder what one cut from 416 stainless , with 5 zeros right of the point tolerance would do?

[tburnsten]

28. There's some loose tolerances designed into them

I doubt the AK platform could ever be a super accurate rifle, but I bet with enough care in machining and loading for the individual rifle you could get 1.5 MOA or so.

[TPaine7]

5. declaring gun rights to be fundamental...

"declaring gun rights to be fundamental could not be squared with the Supreme Court’s remarks that some forms of regulation would remain valid."

Does that mean that the First Amendment isn't fundamental either?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Speech is regulated; you can't scream outside someone's window at midnight. Protests in certain places require licenses. You can't perform human sacrifices, Congress has banned murder.

Alan Dershowitz was right to condemn

foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right…. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

Source: Alan Dershowitz quoted by Gifford. Dan Gifford, “The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason,” Tennessee Law Review 62 (1995): 759, 789. Quoted in testimony of Robert A. Levy Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, (June 28, 2005). http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rl062805.html .

[tburnsten]

14. Yeah, there are anti-gun conservatives too

but the bastards involved here are almost certainly members of our team, in the broad sense. That is a very fair way to describe what happened.

[Ter]

61. Can you name an anti-gun conservative please?

Didn't know they existed.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Reichert

He's in favor of high-cap magazine bans, and wanted to extend the 'assault' weapons ban.

Opinions will vary, but that's 'anti-gun' to me.

[Ter]

73. Dave Reichert is described as a moderate Republican

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Reichert

Next.

[tburnsten]

75. A 'moderate Republican' isn't conservative to you?

Maybe not as conservative as someone like Limbaugh or Glen Beck, but I believe a hallmark of being Republican includes claims of conservatism, even if it isn't drastic.

[tburnsten]

74. How about Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke?

Didn't know they were Republican? They are about as anti-gun as you can get.

[Bob2bob]

20. The Militia Amendment

If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to secure a fundamental, personal right to own a gun, it would JUMP out of the page at you. It's a MILITIA amendment.

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

17, 20 Aug. 1789 Annals 1 49--52, 766--67
<17 Aug.>

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the USE OF A MILITIA? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a MILITIA, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the MILITIA, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective MILITIA to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from MILITIA DUTY who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of BEARING ARMS.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "UPON PAYING AN EQUIVALENT, to be established BY LAW."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be EXCUSED provided they found a SUBSTITUTE.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render MILITARY SERVICE, in person, upon PAYING AN EQUIVALENT."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the STATES, respectively, WILL HAVE GOVERNMENT OF THE MILITIA, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a SUBSTITUTE, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself TURNED OUT TO FIGHT.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the BENEVOLENCE OF THE LEGISLATURE, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNMENT. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but THE LEGISLATURE will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they OUGHT TO BE LEFT TO THEIR DISCRETION.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

<20 Aug.>

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their SERVICES, nor can an EQUIVALENT be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a MILITIA can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get EXCUSED from BEARING ARMS.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms.

[Bob2bob]

23. Jefferson Letter

"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of *MILITIA* for a standing army, and an express reservation to the *STATES* of all *RIGHTS* not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States *AS THEY NOW STAND*. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution." - Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, June 19, 1802

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. I take it you have no problem with the various states suing over HCR, then?

They are exercising their "states' rights", are they not?

[Bob2bob]

26. Intent.

I take it you have no problem with the various states suing over HCR, then? They are exercising their "states' rights", are they not?

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure the people of the States the right to maintain their own militia forces if congress abused/neglected it's powers in Article 1, Section 8. Congress has the power to use taxes to provide for the general welfare in the Same Article. The Framers didn't limit in any way what "general welfare" means in the document.

It's funny how some people argue that there's no such thing as collective rights, or State rights when it comes to guns, but there is when it comes to blocking access to healthcare.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Many of us operate under the assumption that the 2nd will be, and should be incorporated

Congress has the power to enact national health care, but there is nothing in the BOR that forces a state to accept it. It is silent on the matter, therefore the 9th and 10th are in effect.

If you'd like to see a constitutional amendment that constructs such a mechanism, I'm game, but I doubt it would be ratified.

[paulsby]

54. i have no problem with it

and i 100% support RKBA

it is an issue (HCR) that needs judicial review, and the AG's have the standing to require that

i support the HCR bill *and* i support the challenge of it

rule of law, seperation of powers, etc. it's what's for dinner

[Bob2bob]

56. "RKBA?"

It isn't "RKBA," it's the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Why don't you butcher the amendment even further by just referring to the "right to arms?" This will snips out the phrase "bear arms" as well as "the people" and any reference to State security and a well regulated militia.

[paulsby]

57. the "people" as such

recognizes an individual right

heller says that, and common sense says that.

just like EVERY other right in the bor

as for the well regulated militia, that's a prefatory phrase and simply offers a reason why it's so important

see the numerous other examples of prefatory clauses in revolutionary times

[TPaine7]

58. Says the guy who repeatedly removes "the right of the people" from the question

by reducing the Amendment to:

"A well regulated militia,.. shall not be infringed."

and consistently compares the Second Amendment to unlinked purported snippets of state constitutions THAT CONTAIN NO MENTION OF RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

That's some funny stuff there, Bob.

[TPaine7]

29. That's some high grade sophistry, Bob. I'm impressed.

Assuming this quotation is correct--there is no link and I haven't verified it--it still doesn't say anything to support a collective rights theory.

Jefferson wrote to Madison asking that the following be included in the amendments to the Constitution:

1) freedom of religion
2) freedom of the press
3) trial by jury
4) habeas corpus
5) the substitution of militia for a standing army
6) the express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union

This just goes to show that Jefferson was writing imprecisely or that many heads are better than one. He got the first four of his wish list; the last two were not agreed to and ratified as he proposed them, but "as they now stand." "As they now stand" is quite different from what Jefferson proposed, and I am glad of that.

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion and of the press, and the Sixth Amendment protects trial by jury. Jefferson was mistaken about the writ needing protection by amendment; it was protected in the original Constitution, Article One, Section 9:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Jefferson definitely didn't get an amendment substituting the militia for a standing army:

Amendment II

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.

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The Second Amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That statement neither forbids a standing army nor substitutes a militia for it. Common sense would tell you that if the Constitution forbade a standing army, our current armed forces, at least the Army and Marines, would be unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment doesn't even establish the militia. The government already had militia authority in the original Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8.

There is no way to pretend that the Second Amendment follows Jefferson's recommendation--"the substitution of militia for a standing army." Instead, it protects the people's individual right to keep and bear arms.

Jefferson also didn't get "the express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union." As a matter of fact, it is hard for me to believe that Jefferson wanted what he literally states there. It would be horrible indeed if any state of the union possessed "all rights not specifically granted to the union." That would mean, of necessity, that there would be no such thing as a HUMAN right. There would be only your state's rights and the rights of the United States. Government, either Federal or State, would have the legal authority to control every tiny detail of your life--no exceptions. This flies directly in the face of the philosophy expressed in Jefferson's own Declaration of Independence.

In any event, the Amendments as passed said something altogether different than Jefferson's recommendation:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The Ninth Amendment says that we "the people" have individual rights not mentioned in the Constitution but sacred nonetheless. Just because they are not spelled out does not mean they are denied. The State cannot arbitrarily control personal aspects of your life.

The Tenth Amendment say that rights not delegated to the US by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

Bob, in order to push his collective gun rights theory, would like to remove the part I capitalized. But though Jefferson left it off, due to either sloppy writing or intent, that is not how the Amendment passed. The Constitution most emphatically does not reserve "to the states ... all rights not specifically granted to the union" and that is a very good thing.

BOTTOM LINE: THE PARTS BOB HIGHLIGHTED ARE PRECISELY THE PARTS THAT DIDN'T GET INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION:

1) the substitution of *MILITIA* for a standing army
2) an express reservation to the *STATES* of all *RIGHTS* not specifically granted to the Union

The other higlighted part--"*AS THEY NOW STAND*"--is simply Jefferson's admission that the Amendments were not passed as he proposed, BUT AS REWRITTEN TO REMOVE THE PORTIONS BOB HIGHLIGHTED.

I have to give it to Bob, however. That was some high grade sophistry. Assuming that the quotation is valid, he used a direct quotation from a founder to imply that the Constitution means things DIRECTLY AND IRRECONCILABLY OPPOSED TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.

Nice try, Bob. Very nice try.

[Bob2bob]

32. You're part of the problem

it still doesn't say anything to support a collective rights theory

It doesn't support a fundamental right to own a gun unconnected to a militia, does it?
It DOES support the "theory" that it's a "MILITIA" amendment, as I've said all along. "A well regulated militia,.. shall not be infringed."

Jefferson wrote to Madison asking that the following be included in the amendments to the Constitution:

1) freedom of religion
2) freedom of the press
3) trial by jury
4) habeas corpus
5) the substitution of militia for a standing army
6) the express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union

This just goes to show that Jefferson was writing imprecisely...

No. He understood it, at that time, to be a "well regulated militia" amendment.

"As they now stand" is quite different from what Jefferson proposed

According to YOU, but NOT according to Thomas Jefferson:

"He (Madison) accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for *THESE* amendments, which were agreed to and *RATIFIED* by the States *AS THEY NOW STAND*."

[TPaine7]

48. So I'm responsible for your sophistry?

It doesn't support a fundamental right to own a gun unconnected to a militia, does it?

Of course it does, read Heller.

The Court hasn't formally declared it a fundamental right, but there are heavy hints. And that is, logically, the correct conclusion.

"He (Madison) accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for *THESE* amendments, which were agreed to and *RATIFIED* by the States *AS THEY NOW STAND*."

I don't have time to go round and round with you about what Jefferson is saying. If the amendments had been ratified exactly as he suggested them, the words "as they now stand" would have been superfluous. Given the facts and my clear explanation, any LITERATE English speaker should be able to see the truth.

You've already demonstrated (as I showed here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x298380#304633 and here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x298380#304681 ) that you cannot be trusted to read and comprehend anything that challenges your pet collective right militia theory. But your distortion field induced issues are beyond my power to help.

You have my sympathy, but there is little I can do over the internet. Seek the help of a literate, English speaking, trusted adult friend. I'm pulling for you!

[TPaine7]

52. Oops, I lost track of the antecedent of "it" in that first quote.

You are correct that Jefferson's quote--assuming that's what it is--doesn't say anything supporting an individual right.

My response was addressing the Second Amendment, which clearly does. See Heller.

[Bob2bob]

55. You DID lose track

You are correct that Jefferson's quote.. doesn't say anything supporting an individual right.

The main point is: Jefferson couldn't have considerd the Second Amendment to be unconnected to a militia if HE described it as "the substitution of militia for a standing army." He OBVIOUSLY considered the purpose of the amendment to be to secure a well-regulated militia, as I've said all along.

See Heller

Comedy.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. The militia is formed OF the people in times of need. Hence, the people must be free to be armed.

Otherwise, you just have a bunch of dudes with pitchforks and torches when need arises.


The formation of a militia and it's use in securing a free state is WHY, the people remaining armed is WHAT the 2nd Amendment protects.

If it didn't protect the latter, the former couldn't exist. Particularly some 115 years before the formation of the National Guard.

[Bob2bob]

66. Articles of Confederation

The formation of a militia and it's use in securing a free state is WHY, the people remaining armed is WHAT the 2nd Amendment protects. If it didn't protect the latter, the former couldn't exist.

Articles of Confederation:
"..but every STATE shall always keep up a WELL-REGULATED and disciplined MILITIA, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, IN PUBLIC STORES, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of ARMS, ammunition and camp equipage."

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Exactly right.

But there are two types of militia. Both are protected, both are needed. Both recognized by current US Code. The AoC is no longer in force. Since the 2nd does not specify 'organized militia', the following is critical to understand:



(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


It is legal, it is in force. The Organized Militia is the State Guard (if your state has one) and the State National Guard. The rest is 'the people'. The latter doesn't see much action, but from time to time, it's the last line of defense.

[tburnsten]

76. Yes, field pieces. Also known as "artillery"

As in, "King of the battle, that mighty, that mighty, Field Artillery!"

And keeping spare arms in case your members show up with unusual calibers or designs is not a bad idea, also given that forces may lose weaponry through attrition over the course of a campaign.

Does the fact that the states are ordered to keep tents available mean that tents should not be legal for civilian ownership?

[TPaine7]

49. "A well regulated militia,.. shall not be infringed."

The founders were men of letters, at least the ones who drafted the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"The rights of well regulated State Militias shall not be infringed" is a perfectly grammatical sentence, as is "The right of the Militias of the several States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Both are simpler and more elegant than what we have.

The founders definitely wanted to say more than either of these fantasy Second Amendments convey.

Read Heller.

Your use of ellipses reminds me of a famous one from the Bible:

Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.... Go, and do thou likewise.

Source: Genesis 4:8-Luke 10:37

[gorfle]

79. Very bad quoting.

It DOES support the "theory" that it's a "MILITIA" amendment, as I've said all along. "A well regulated militia,.. shall not be infringed."

Wrong. The complete amendment 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."

Note that it is not the militia that shall not be infringed, as you imply. Rather, it is the right of the PEOPLE that shall not be infringed.

If the intent were to protect the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it would specifically say that, and not mention the people at all.

[Bob2bob]

33. Denial

This just goes to show that Jefferson was writing imprecisely.. the last two were not agreed to and ratified... it is hard for me to believe that Jefferson wanted what he literally states there... the Amendments as passed said something altogether different than Jefferson's recommendation.. Jefferson left it off, due to.. sloppy writing..

"..the substitution of *MILITIA* for a standing army, and an express reservation to the *STATES* of all *RIGHTS* not specifically granted to the Union. He (Madison) accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for *THESE AMENDMENTS*, which were agreed to and *RATIFIED*" - Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, June 19, 1802

[TPaine7]

60. Bob's quotation is a textbook example of how honest people *DO NOT* use ellipses.

Compare just part of his butchered "quotation" to the original in post 29:

Bob's version:

This just goes to show that Jefferson was writing imprecisely.. the last two were not agreed to and ratified... it is hard for me to believe that Jefferson wanted what he literally states there... the Amendments as passed said something altogether different than Jefferson's recommendation.. Jefferson left it off, due to.. sloppy writing..

Original:

But though Jefferson left it off, due to either sloppy writing or intent, that is not how the Amendment passed.

I do not KNOW that Jefferson was writing sloppily, I highly suspect it for reasons spelled out in post 29. So I simply say that it was either sloppy reasoning OR INTENT. Whichever it was, the Amendment didn't pass as Jefferson supposedly said he wanted it to in Bob's alleged quotation. The main point is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Jefferson's letters as alleged by internet characters, or even Jefferson's actual letters.


You should never trust Bob's snippets of alleged quotations unless he provides links that you follow and verify, or if you otherwise check them out personally. The quotation could be totally bogus or the clarifying part that negates his point could lie in the ellipsis or in the immediate context. His use of ellipses alone suggests serious character issues. Combined with his use of an alleged Jefferson letter to imply that the Constitution means things that it most definitely does not say (post 23 does this as I explain in post 29), no one should take Bob's arguments, quotations, or statements at face value unless they are carefully and methodically examined.

For more on Bob's use of ellipses, see post 49 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x305329#305919).

[Bob2bob]

67. "Never trust Bob's snippets?"

You should never trust Bob's snippets of alleged quotations unless he provides links

Why not advice people to paste a part of the quotes into a Google search to verify for themselves that they're genuine? You KNOW they are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. I'd like to know how he manages to post with a quill pen and parchment.

Or perhaps one of those optical semaphore systems...

[TPaine7]

59. Have you ever watched Warehouse 13?

I think they showed the equipment in one or two episodes.

[Bob2bob]

40. The substitution of MILITIA for a standing army, the bane of liberty

Jefferson definitely didn't get an amendment substituting the militia for a standing army

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

17, 20 Aug. 1789 Annals 1 49--52, 766--67
<17 Aug.>

The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry. "What, sir, is the USE OF A MILITIA? It is to prevent the establishment of a STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a MILITIA, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the MILITIA, in order to raise an ARMY upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective MILITIA to the eastward. The (STATE) Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Incorrect.

The existence of militia does not PREVENT the establishment of a standing army. Militia and regular troops in fact fought side by side in the Revolutionary War. Washington State today, has federal troops of all branches of the military, Washington State National Guard, and Washington State Guard (an organized militia). It also has unorganized militia of various types/groups, mostly meaningless.

They can, do, and always have co-existed. So the fellow quoted is in error.

[Bob2bob]

68. Come off it.

The existence of militia does not PREVENT the establishment of a standing army... They can, do, and always have co-existed. So the fellow quoted is in error.

Obviously, they're talking about this militia amendment to preventing the need for large standing armies being kept up in time of peace.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. A nice theory

but impractical in today's day and age, where the world has shrunk so that an attack could be hours, or in some cases, minutes away. Doesn't abrogate the need for a militia. A savvy Governor could put the unorganized militia to work in many ways, in all sorts of emergencies, from running security, to search and rescue, even filling sandbags. That they do not, is usually an example of an ineffective Governor that isn't using all of his or her options.

[Bob2bob]

36. Jefferson Letter 2

"Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof: & for my own satisfaction & justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, *FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES*, trial by jury, & a constant Habeas corpus act." - Thomas Jefferson

"Freedom from standing armies" is the "substitution of militia" amendment in the letter he refers to and that I posted.
Again, no mention of a personal right to own "guns."

[TPaine7]

42. Nothing anywhere in the BOR says that the United States will be free of standing armies...

except in your fevered imagination.

Where is the repeal of the "Militia Amendment" that would allow our current armed forces, or where, at least, is the legal smoke and mirrors show to pretend that the "Militia Amendment" forbidding standing armies somehow allows them?

*IF* Jefferson actually wrote this, he wrote very imprecisely.

"Again, no mention of a personal right to own 'guns.'"

Assuming that this is Jefferson, he missed several rights that appear in the BOR. And he is defenitely wrong on the forbidding of standing armies. So you've established that--if he actually wrote this--he missed many rights and listed some provisions that weren't there.

Congratulations.

[TPaine7]

30. Read Heller n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. He won't. Self-appointed "experts" on the 2A avoid discussing details of SC decisions...

...as it tends to not work so well for them

[Bob2bob]

41. Scalia & Co

Scalia & Co:
"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities."

Stevens, J:
"But contemporary sources make clear that the phrase “bear arms” was often used to convey a military meaning without those additional words. See, e.g., To The Printer, Providence Gazette, (May 27, 1775) (“By the common estimate of three millions of people in America, allowing one in five to bear arms, there will be found 600,000 fighting men”); Letter of Henry Laurens to the Mass. Council (Jan. 21, 1778), in Letters of Delegates to Congress 1774–1789, p. 622 (P. Smith ed. 1981) (“Congress were yesterday informed . . . that those Canadians who returned from Saratoga . . . had been compelled by Sir Guy Carleton to bear Arms”); Of the Manner of Making War among the Indians of North-America, Connecticut Courant (May 23, 1785) (“The Indians begin to bear arms at the age of fifteen, and lay them aside when they arrive at the age of sixty. Some nations to the southward, I have been informed, do not continue their military exercises after they are fifty”); 28 Journals of the Continental Congress 1030 (G. Hunt ed. 1910) (“That hostages be mutually given as a security that the Convention troops and those received in exchange for them do not bear arms prior to the first day of May next”); H. R. J., 9th Cong., 1st Sess., 217 (Feb. 12, 1806) (“Whereas the commanders of British armed vessels have impressed many American seamen, and compelled them to bear arms on board said vessels, and assist in fighting their battles with nations in amity and peace with the United States”); H. R. J., 15th Cong., 2d Sess., 182–183 (Jan. 14, 1819) (“ state that they were residing in the British province of Canada, at the commencement of the late war, and that owing to their attachment to the United States, they refused to bear arms, when called upon by the British authorities . . .”). 10 Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), a case we cited in Miller, further confirms this reading of the phrase. In Aymette, the Tennessee
Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment, the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ . . . have reference
to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.” 21 Tenn., at 158. The court elaborated: “e may remark, that the phrase ‘bear arms’ is used in the Kentucky Constitution as well as our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. . . . A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes.""

[PavePusher]

45. I do not bear arms "...about the person as part of the dress."

I do so for defense of my person and, by both definition and extension, "the people in a body, for their common defence."

Thanks for the ammo.

[TPaine7]

46. Look up "unequivocally" or get a trusted adult to explain these passages to you n/t

[Bob2bob]

47. Bear Arms

“to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight”

Original draft:
"..but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

First re-worded version:
"..but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
------------------------
"Bear arms" and "render military service" are the same thing. Do you think Scalia & Co didn't KNOW this? This matter was well settled, but they've created a constitutional MESS.

[gorfle]

80. WHERE ARE THE MILITIAS TODAY?

The simple fact is, Bob, that the militias that existed in our founders' day no longer exist.

Militias were set up as state-sponsored, decentralized military forces so that the central government would not have the military means to enforce a tyranny over the people. Militias were to eliminate, or at least be able to counter, federal infantry power.

Those militias ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act). That law essentially federalized the state militias, creating the National Guard. This made them not counters to federal military power, but instead adjuncts to it.

I have no doubt that our founders foresaw this possible corruption, and this is why the second amendment specifically enumerates the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, and not THE MILITIA.

They did this s that even if the institute of the militia were usurped or disbanded, THE PEOPLE would still have the means to resist oppression.

The founders' intent is as clear in the passages you cite as in others I have read: There is a clear, unambiguous trust of the central federal government and its military forces. The overriding intent, clearly and obviously, was to create a military system that would keep that military power out of the hands of the federal government, or at least give the states, through the people, the means to counter it.

If the militias are gone, their power usurped by the federal government, does that mean that the entire second amendment no longer applies? Or does it mean, instead, that in spite of their being no organized militias that the people should carry on in their right to keep and bear arms and so resist oppression?

I am certain it is the latter.

[tburnsten]

13. Ohhhhh boy, some mental gymnastics going on here eh?

"that is, a challenged law will be upheld if it is “substantially related to an important governmental interest.” "

Aha. And what governmental interest, exactly, is being served by the new infringements?




"The new law provides a list of what it considers to be assault weapons, including pistols, rifles and shotguns, or guns that have military-style features such as use of a magazine that can be detached.

The judge concluded that these weapons are not in common use, are not possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule, and are dangerous. Thus, the judge ruled, they are outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Thus, Urbina said, there was no need to weigh their constitutionality. If intermediate scrutiny were applied, however, the judge said the ban would satisfy that standard because the ban is keyed to public safety."


Excuse me? Firearms with detachable magazines are not "in common use"? I don't know whether to laugh or cry that these are the people determining the future of our nation, but this is idiotic at best, corrupt and blatantly

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. This won't be the last of this. From the link:

...Technically, the judge decided the challenge by ruling on competing motions for a ruling without a full trial — that is, summary judgment — because the facts were not in dispute. Joining Dick Anthony Heller in the challenge were three other District residents, Absalom Jordan, William Carter and Mark Snyder.

The challengers have the option of appealing the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court and eventually to the Supreme Court. One or both of those maneuvers seems likely, given the breadth of the new restrictions and the fervor of the challengers.

I think this is especially vulnerable due to the blatant claim about modern-style firearms not being in "lawful, general use"

[benEzra]

31. The most popular lawfully owned firearms in America aren't in lawful, general use?

Huh?

[Hoopla Phil]

50. I wonder if SCOTUS is paying attention to this kind of thing. If so it could HELP lead to

strict scrutiny. This may show them that anything less than strict scrutiny will leave a small hole that large amounts of crap will be squeezed through.

[Tejas]

18. Same judge that dismissed charges against Blackwater - nt

[PavePusher]

19. Idiot judge, rope, tree.

Some assembly required.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

[DissedByBush]

43. We need rope and tree control

They're obviously dangerous if you're thinking that way.

[PavePusher]

44. I just want to built a tree swing.....

Really.

:rofl:

[spin]

25. The Brady Campaign was overjoyed at the ruling ...

Brady Center Applauds Court Decision Upholding Strong D.C. Gun Laws

WASHINGTON - March 26 - U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina today upheld as constitutional several strong gun laws enacted by the District of Columbia following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2008 decision striking down D.C.’s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court rejected arguments by Dick Heller (the same plaintiff who challenged D.C.’s prior laws) that the Second Amendment did not allow the District’s new firearms registration law, and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence assisted the District in defending its laws.

“Today’s court decision is the latest ruling to make it clear that the Second Amendment allows strong common sense gun laws,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke. “Once again, the courts have rejected the gun lobby’s attempt to transform the core right to guns in the home for self-defense into a mandate for their ‘any gun, anywhere’ agenda. Politicians and legislatures at all levels should stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse for inaction against gun violence. They should follow the District’s example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities.”
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/03/26-12

[-..__...]

34. Actually...

that doesn't sound as enthusiastic and overjoyed as their usual celebratory bile.

If it was a major victory for their side... they'd be dancing around the May pole about it.

Instead, it's relegated to a secondary page; meanwhile, they're still too preoccupied and obsessed with people packing heat in Starbucks (bigger fish to fry, I guess).

It's not a big victory by any means. It's a lower court ruling (and appears to be following the same trac as DC/Parker/Heller), that'll be appealed with the same disappointing results as Heller and the soon to be decided McDonald case.

[PavePusher]

27. On reflection...

I can think of two possibilities here.

1. He's just begging to be overturned because he's willfully stupid and/or doesn't want to advance in his field. (High probability)

2. He's taking one for the team so that this will (hopefully) be forced to be spelled out clearly in higher courts. (Low probability)

My problem is that if the latter, he has much more faith/optimism than I that higher courts will do their jobs, when such should be started at his level or lower. So even if he's trying to do the right thing, he's doing it in the wrong way.

Sadly, the ultimate loosers are, as always, the Citizens and their Civil Rights.

[DissedByBush]

35. "guns that have military-style features such as use of a magazine that can be detached"

Wow, such a militaristic and dangerous gun!



That's a Ruger 10/22, .22 cal, a common gun for kids starting to learn to shoot, and adults for plinking.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Or a 1905 Colt Automatic pistol? This judge hates the 20th Century!

The stupid, it burns!

[Euromutt]

53. That was more or less my impression

Regarding the mechanical features of firearms, the judge's ruling would have been reasonable in 1890. And frankly, that "in common use" thing has so jumped the shark; it's a direct setup for a circular argument. "We shouldn't have to lift the ban on possessing this particular type of firearm, because it's not in common use." Gee, the fact that possession is outlawed wouldn't have something to do with the fact that it's not in common use, would it?

[Ready4Change]

72. Exact example I was thinking of.

Many hunting rifles use detachable magazines. I can not think if any common examples of semi-automatic hand guns that DON'T use detachable magazines, including some whose magazines hold fewer rounds than most revolvers. Speaking of which, how would this law apply to speed loaders for revolvers?

This sounds, to me, like a sloppy ruling that will do nothing but create years of more court cases, leaving it all in a muddled mess. Meanwhile, criminals will continue to ignore ALL laws, and would-be law-abiding citizens will be left clueless as to how to LEGALLY defend themselves.

[moroni]

77. This "ruling" does exactly what it is suppose to do...

...keeps the judges and lawyers working. No shortage of "jobs" here.

[Hoopla Phil]

51. This is in direct contradiction to the part in the Heller decision that said

that the unorganized militia, when called up, have to show up with the same kind of equipment that is current issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. HAHAHAHAHAAAA that's going straight back to the SC.

'not in common use' and 'not posessed by law-abiding citizens' my ass. He's welcome to come look in my gun safe any ol' time.

[gorfle]

78. Very serious flaw in the reasoning.

The judge said that these regulations do implicate the Second Amendment right to defend one’s self in the home, but that they are justified as ways for local officials to monitor gun use, track guns used in crimes, and allow prosecution for failing to register.

The new law provides a list of what it considers to be assault weapons, including pistols, rifles and shotguns, or guns that have military-style features such as use of a magazine that can be detached.

The judge concluded that these weapons are not in common use, are not possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule, and are dangerous. Thus, the judge ruled, they are outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Thus, Urbina said, there was no need to weigh their constitutionality. If intermediate scrutiny were applied, however, the judge said the ban would satisfy that standard because the ban is keyed to public safety.

There is a very serious flaw in the reasoning here. The judge is making the assumption that the second amendment is primarily about the right to defend one's self in the home.

This is false.

The second amendment is primarily about maintaining an armed citizenry as a precaution against oppression from without and within, that is, resistance to tyranny.

Weapons used for this purpose should be military-style, and should be dangerous.

[Abq_Sarah]

81. Military style features?

WTF does that even mean?

This judge knows absolutely nothing about firearms.

[gorfle]

82. Agreed.

But I take it to mean identical in form and function to military equivalents with the exception of select-fire capability.

They should shoot similar if not identical ammunition, utilize similar if not identical magazines, and be of equivalent durability and accuracy.