Second Amendment
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080318/ts_csm/aguns;_ylt=AhxKAmywO1RsnIKBlSxrPpis0NUE

FYI

Tom

RE: Second Amendment
 

Even if the 2nd Amendment only guarantees theright to keep & bear military-type arms, the right applies to everyone, as the article does NOT say "The Right of Militia Members to keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed"... it says "The Right of the People". To me, "The People" means all of us!! Just like in all the other nine articles of the Bill of Rights". What's so bloody hard to understand about this concept??

RE: Second Amendment
 

Agreed. It defies logic. However we also live in a country that allows criminals to undergo gender changing therapy so just about anything is possible.

Tom

RE: Second Amendment
 

I believe those who "misinterpret" this article are those who crave political power at any cost, like Eliot Sptizer, Barak Obama, the Clintons, etc. They fear an armed citizenry, as they believe the pronouncement of Chairman Mao that"political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". He was right about that!

RE: Second Amendment
 

US v Miller is a poor example of judicial precident. Miller was a convicted felon who carried a sawed off shotgun across statelines in the early 1930's. The judge wanted to make an example of him and when Miller pulled the card that it was his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms the Judge found a way around it with the whole milita/national guard thing and inadvertantly started a schism among law makers and law abiding citizens.

I'd say that if they declare the second amendment pretains to state rights only, not individual rights, then the whole damn Bill of Rights pertains only to states rights. "The People" cannot mean the individual citizens in one sentence, and the states indepentantly in another. Anyone with a 7th grade english comprehension level should be able to wrap their lopsided head around that.

You have to go back to what James Madison meant when he wrote the federalist papers, and look at some of the early drafts he and some of the other framers of the constitution considered. Its clearly evident to me, and to most scholars I have consulted through out my life, that Madison's intent was to have armed private citizens. Any scholar who denys the historic facts, and literary meaning and structure of the ammendment has a private bone to pick with firearms.

RE: Second Amendment
 

"Lawyers for Heller disagree. They characterize the amendment's first clause as a preamble to the rights-securing language in the second clause. "The preamble cannot contradict or render meaningless the operative text," writes Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura, in his brief to the court."

At least somebody gets it. This is why all lawyers need to have English degrees... if you cannot properly understand the context of the English language, you have no business using it to dictate the actions of other people who know better.

RE: Second Amendment
 

On a meaningfulbut otherwise unrelated note.... Washington DC is a perfect example of exactly what kind of violence you will have in a city where people no longer have the right to protect themselves. What ever happened to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? It would seem to me that by not allowing a law abiding citizen to defend his rights, you are undermining the entire process. DC has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, followed by East and NW Chicago in Illinois, another state with a zero tolerance policy on carry. Taking handguns away from "criminals" sure is working great isn't it?

RE: Second Amendment
 

The NRA website will be following this case closely, if you want to keep up with it, and if you own a gun you should, you can subscribe to their newsletter on the site. While you're there, if you are not a member, JOIN!

RE: Second Amendment
 

I think the term "States Rights" is a misnomer. Only individuals can have rights, not governments. The power that states and the federal government has is given to it by the people, i.e. by their right to vote for and elect representatives (all including the president)to form the government. This is a simple concept, but often missed by even Harvard educated lawyers. ;)

RE: Second Amendment
 

From what I have read they expect the decision to be a close 5-4 vote which could go wither way. God help us if the ban is upheld.

Bob

RE: Second Amendment
 

I'll be headin for the hills, they won't take my guns!

RE: Second Amendment
 

Unfortunetly no matter what anyone thinks no militia would ever unseat the federal government unless it was extrodinarily large. They have amazing weaponary these days that render standard firearms completely inadequate.

For me it's about my right to own firearms and hunt.

So Destructo, run for the hills. These days they could likely fire some kind of sound wave into the hills that would make you cramp up and crap yourself. Just make sure you bring plenty of tp.

Tom

RE: Second Amendment
 

I wouldn't doubt it, i'v been watching those shows on disovery military, who knows what they have that we don't know about!

But I say they have to find me first!

RE: Second Amendment
 

If they are trying to interpret what the founding fathers meant. They only need to ask themselves.. Did these men own guns? The answer is simple, and so should this case. If any of the people in DC had any common sense at all..[:@]

RE: Second Amendment
 

Speaking of convicted felons.....not owning a firearm, I hate when a crime takes away a right unrelated to what the crime was. If you committed armed robbery using a firearm, sure that guy shouldn't be able to own a firearm legally, but simply lumping all felons into the category of not being able to use a firearm is ridiculous. Many crimes that are felonies can be non-violent, and non-drug related as well, I know many guys like to point to drugs as a non-violent and some disagree with that but there are many other non-violent, non-drug felones. My point is that the punishment should relate to the crime, if you get a DUI they take away your license, they don't take take away your right to buy cigarettes. Of course I guess asking for that is too much, I must be crazy to want crimes/punishments to be related, just, and fair.

RE: Second Amendment
 

IMO the Supreme Court is going to come down on our side on this one. Bush may or may not have done thing's that some of us like or dislike. But IMO his Supreme Court Judge appointments are going to help us out. I just hope the Supreme Court comes out with their decision when they said they would(June). If this comes out before the election then Gun Control may again become an election issue. If the Supreme Court does not come down on our side, and A democrat gets elected to the White House, then you better start running to the hills. Tom.

RE: Second Amendment
 

Ok everyone, just remember what happened in 2000 when Al Gore said he wanted all guns. That is essentially what lost him the election. The days of common sense in government are definitely over. Just like the military, the more formal education the more severe the lack of common sense.

RE: Second Amendment
 

I can't see firearm ownership being outlawed, but everything else in this country seems to be going to hell so who knows. You would think bankers would have been smart enough to not loan money to people who would never be able to pay that money back. I don't have much faith in these so called "great minds" with prestigious pedigrees that are making the decisions and running the show.

If ownership is banned, the Supreme Court and the Government are going to have ~55 million voting, gun-toting Americans pretty p*ssed off.

RE: Second Amendment
 

I remember reading an article which gave a longer version of what those who argue against individuals owning firearms are saying, and it should concern us all. Here is the gist of it.

The founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights were landed gentry in a societal framework which has since all but disappeared. Their attitudes were conditioned by their environment, but the environment itself has altered so drastically during the ensuing 200+ years since their time as to be an entirely new environment, one which they could never imagine and did not plan on during the authorship of the Bill of Rights. Therefore the Bill of Rights should be seen as an historical document, but its contents should be adapted to fit our modern era.

Do you see where their argument could take us if it is accepted? It is my observation that those who are most rabid concerning the disarming of the citizenry are in phase one of a multiphase objective. The second amendment is, in their eyes, the weak link in the chain of amendments which our founding fathers saw fit to start this country off with. But if the enemies of this amendment can get it severely amended, if not repealed altogether, I am seriously concerned that the legal arguments they use in order to accomplish this will then be used to attack the other amendments, with the end result being to replace all ten of them with an elitist oligarchical manifesto which will give rights only to a privileged few, while demanding abject subservience from the majority.

RE: Second Amendment
 

I'm a lawyer. I don't have an English degree. Yet, somehow, I understand exactly what it means. Those who don't "understand" actually do understand. They just have a political agenda which mandates that they ignore the plain meaning.

RE: Second Amendment
 

I don't know... A bunch of poorly armed Afghans kicked the Russkies out of Afghanistan. And, we're having a not entirely easy time in Iraq...

RE: Second Amendment
 

And there are a lot of us that already served, were trainedon the government's dime (our money) to kill people and break stuff, and taught the guys that are leading the military now. And I'm in shape....round is a shape, isn't it?;)

RE: Second Amendment
 

Yes, round is a shape... I'm more "pear". :D I don't have your training, but, I know my way around and M1A, an AR15, and a 1911... having used them all in practical shooting competitions. I'd be more than happy to join forces with someone with more practical experience.;)

RE: Second Amendment
 

I can hunt out of a tree stand and I can cook. Any more room available?

Oh yeah I'll also bring the tp incase they fire that fancy cannon at us.

Tom

RE: Second Amendment
 

How many of you are NRA members?

I'm a life member and wonder why others arent, what are we doing to stand together to protect our rights?

RE: Second Amendment
 

Quote:

---

"that Madison's intent was to have armed private citizens."

---

As was Jefferson's and George Mason's as well, to name but a few of like mind in this matter!

I don't believe the presenters of the current case explored the concept of the milita in their arguments the other day. Most people erroneously regard the National Guard as today's "militia", when in fact the National Guard is only one part of the whole of the militia -it is the "Organized Militia".

In the days of the founding fathers, the militia consisted of "ALL able-bodied male citizensbetween the ages of 17 and 45, except for a few public officials and members of the standing Army".... Therefore, even if the 2nd Amendment ONLY meant the militia, the militia was practically everyone in those days. Most people do not know this, but the Federal Law which STILL EXISTS establishing the militiaOF TODAY defines the militia in almost exactly the same terms, except that the "male" citizens phrase is now assumed to include females as well.

[quote]Incidentally, if the question is whether "militia" in the Second Amendment means just something like the National Guard, that's one thing that the Supreme Court has resolved: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (Today, after the Court's sex equality cases under the Fourteenth Amendment, it would likely include women, too.) The Militia Act of 1792 took a similar view, as does the currently effective Militia Act.

B. The currently effective Militia Act:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . 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." A.

Sources on the Second Amendment
and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

A. The forgoing definition includeseveryone else physically capable of performing militia duty!! Since the various governments do not possess sufficient stockpiles of weapons to arm all of us, I assume we would still be expected to report for duty with privately-owned arms......

RE: Second Amendment
 

The problems you guys in the U.S. are facing are very similar to what we are facing in Canada as well as the rest of the civilized world. As long as bleeding heart liberals look at crime control as the control of the general population as well as prison for re-abilitation then we are all f*&%ed. Never mind stiffer, use the words Harsh and Hard to describe pennalties awarded to those who commit violent crime. Eliminate the legal rights of the individual who is convicted (beyond all doubt) of such crimes, and either euthanise them or have them do hard labour for many, many, years. The vast majority of those that own firearms are law abiding, productive citizens of their societies yet they are always tainted with the same brush as those that are violent offenders.

RE: Second Amendment
 

We here in the U.S. have been facing the do-gooders liberals, power seekers, and gun grabbers for just one helluva long time. It's been happening so long that in his book "The Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle", Ned Roberts predictedthat even .22's would be illegal in a few years. And that prediction was madein the 1920's!

So far, we have "won a few & lost a few", but at the present time, the good guys are winning more than we are losing. I point to the growing number of states in which concealed carry of handguns on a "shall issue" basis is being passed.While it is vconceivable that the Supreme Court may find that the cities like D.C. with large populations have some ability to regulate how firearms are used for self-defense purposes, I do believe the Court will find in favor of the proposition that the possession of arms is an individual right. However, I have seen some decisions by various courts that defiedlogic, reason, and even factual evidence. Sometimes it is impossible to decipher how the legal mind works!

Have NO IDEA how the fight will shape up if Obam,a or Hillary get elected! Historically, the Dems have done us a lot of harm, starting with LBJ!! JFK, Harry Truman, and FDR were ALL members of the NRA!

RE: Second Amendment
 

Let me ask you, how many of you live in D.C.?
Because it is my understanding that this case before the Supreme Court deals exclusively with gun laws in DC only!

Frankly, I don't care. I am keeping my guns, will get more when I can afford them, and will never give them up. Run off to the hills??! I think not. I'll be sitting on my porch letting all to see!

Solution: I'm no lawyer (though I play one on TV)
{IT'S A JOKE SON!}
But wouldn't it be easy for our congress to pass an Amendment, or law, or whatever they do to just put into plain words that we,the qualified American citizen, have the right to own guns? How is that so hard?

RE: Second Amendment
 

The only thing our congress can agree on is voting themselve massive pay raises, and voting themselve one heck of a retirement plan (they get 100% of what they make while serving, adjusted for inflation, for the rest of their lives).

RE: Second Amendment
 

There are constitutional issues which will likely be addressed in the Court's opinion which will reach far beyond just DC.

It takes more than just an act of Congress to pass an Amendment. They could pass a law, but, such a law could be changed on a whim, if the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd Amendment as only protecting "militias." Hopefully, there are enough conservative justices that they will properly interpret the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual rather than collective right. This is why everyone should vote for McCain rather than whichever of the two Socialist candidates the Democrat party nominates. He'll be far more likely to nominate justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

RE: Second Amendment
 

I recently got onto one of the Barack Obama websites (there are quite a few) to see what his attitude toward gun ownership was. What I found out has me conerned, due to the HSUS (a rabid antihunting group) having announced that they are backing him.

Some of you may remember the armor-piercing bullet bill which Reagan vetoed. I wondered what all the fuss was about at that time, since my information concerning this bullet was that it was military ordnance and therefore not available to the civilian populace anyway, in spite of what Lethal Weapon III showed. But I was also a member of the NRA at that time (and have rejoined this organization again recently), and was sent a report of what that bill really was trying to ban.

Antihunting groups, and the politicians they have in their pockets, added other bullets to those that were to be outlawed. Along with those that were specifically designed as armor-piercing bullets, all other bullets above a certain power were to be declared as illegal, irregardless oftheir content andthe purpose for their having been manufactured. According to the NRA,this would have effectively banned all hunting rifle bullets, and therefore put an end to hunting. Reagan realized this and promptly vetoed the bill because of it.

Barack Obama has already stated that he intends to ban armor-piercing bullets and semiautomatic firearms as part of his presidency. Be prepared, because with his already being supported by antihunters, we will probably find ourselves again fighting for our right to hunt. But this time, if he is elected, we will be fighting against not only the groups, but also a president who, either through naivete or deliberate collusion, is in league with them.

RE: Second Amendment
 

You are absolutely correct, this case deals with ONLY the current D.C. prohibition on handgun ownership. HOWEVER, IF the Supreme Court rules that the ownership of firearms by individual citizens, and NOT just by members of Government organized militias,is what the Second Amendment protects, the decision becomes a precedent that any aggrieved citizen could use toinvalidate any and all laws at local, county, or state level that had a comparable effect in preventing citizens from possessing arms. This is the reason why all the anti's are so distressed that the Court may find that the 2nd Amendment makes the D.C. law invalid....... Such a decision would, in effect, put all future would-be gun-baners out of business.....

RE: Second Amendment
 

Indeed. And it is more extensive than just appointing supreme court justices, the president also appoints federal court judges, and remember it wastwo federal appeals court judges that ruled the DC ban unconstitutional on appeal (2-1) that has now led to Washington DC appealing to the US supreme court. This is actually one of the main reasons for gun owners to vote for a Republican candidate versus a Democrat -- the Republican is much more likely to appoint originalist judges and Democrats are much more likely to appoint activist judges that are going to trample the second amendment.

RE: Second Amendment
 

Naturally, those proposing this "armor piercing" ban would have outlawed ANY load that would penetrate a specified thickness of body armor, and therefore prohibit damn near every sporting rifle over .22 rimfire.

However, I do wonder where you got the idea that cvivilains had no access to AP loads. After WWII, there were just tons of U.S. Cal. .30 M2 ball ammo dumped on the surplus market that anyone could purchase, and at least half of this stuff was the "substitute" M2 ball round which was loaded with the black-tip AP bullets. ANYONE could buy it. Many did. It was actually a bit more accurate on average than the M2 stuff with 152-grain lead-core bullets.

I don't know how much of this ammo is still for sale in civilian trade channels, but I do know that some of my acquaintances had a lot of it in the past..... Now the way I read current Federal law concerning "armor-piercing" ammunition, what is prohibited arre bullets "designed for or intended to be fired from a HANGUN", not a rifle. So the M2 AP stuff is still legal at the federal level. But it is probably illegal in places like the severalPeoples Republics of North America(ie., CA, MA,NJ, etc.)

RE: Second Amendment
 

eldequello-

Thanks for the info. I have talked with three gun stores in this area(different outfits) and they tell me that they no longer even carry handgun bullets that are steel-jacketed, only copper-jacketed.

I suspect that if the armor-piercing bullet ban bill does come up again, it will again be a smokescreen for the antihunters to use in order to ban all hunting by outlawing the bullets used in hunting. If we get a president in office that is sympathetic to them (or in their pocket) they just might succeed.

RE: Second Amendment
 

I believe any bullet would penetrate body armor, if driven fast enough!! MOST handguns won't be capable of it!!

RE: Second Amendment
 

There is presently a ban on certain armor-piercing bullets. The law passed in 1986. If I am not mistaken, it applies only to loose bullets, not loaded carts. That's because our lawmakers don't know the difference between them. That right there should tell us a lot.

RE: Second Amendment
 

http://nssf.org/legal/links/corruption.cfm

RE: Second Amendment
 

A few things come to mind. First, even a 5-4 decision in our favor is not likely to be reversed by another SC composition due to stare decisis (it's bad juju to keep reversing previously decided cases). 2nd, the DC lawyers' argument that the 2nd amendment refers to a state's right to arm a militia is historically defective in that all able bodied males over 17 were considered to make up a state's militia pool and each person was expected to supply their own weapon. In such a system, it obviously benefits the state if each able bodied person owns more than one weapon and that at least some of those weapons are capable of being used as military small arms (can anybody say assault weapons??). This case should get decided in our favor and should actually create a lot of state's ancillary cases due to the favorable ruling.