2nd Amendment SCOTUS Poll

[legion]

How will the Supreme Court decide "District of Columbia v. Heller"?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I believe local/state restrictions will be upheld in the form of "reasonable" restrictions. This leaves the door open for interpretation of "reasonable" and naturally keeps lawyers employed for the next 50 years fighting over the meaning of it. This is not really the outcome I'd like to see, but I'd be shocked to see even this "conservative" court uphold "shall not be infringed" to actually mean "shall not be infringed" meaning the citizenry can own whatever they want. This is (IMHO) what the FF intended, but I'd be very surprised to see the court interpret it that way.

But one can hope. . .

I will, however, hold off on buying an AR-15 until the court's decision. How badly would it suck to buy a stupid 10-round-limited setup only to have the court lift state/local restrictions and then have to go out and buy a whole new lower receiver assembly? Not likely, but knowing my luck, that's what would happen if I bought one today.

Aww hell, maybe I'll just go get a shotgun instead for the time being.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I just hope we can bring Militia's back.

You should edit your poll to correctly state the 2nd Amendment: "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."

it's disrespectful as you have it now.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

I just hope we can bring Militia's back.

You should edit your poll to correctly state the 2nd Amendment: "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."

it's disrespectful as you have it now.

Talk to Wayne about letting more than 100 characters be used in poll option titles.

Besides, the well-regulated militia is a justification for the "shall not be infringed", not what is exempt from the infringing. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers to intentionally misinterpret their words.

[id10t]

Hoping for A, realistically expecting some of both B and C

[red-beard]

I hope for A, expect B.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

I just hope we can bring Militia's back.

You should edit your poll to correctly state the 2nd Amendment: "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."

it's disrespectful as you have it now.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And a better explanation.

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by legion

Besides, the well-regulated militia is a justification for the "shall not be infringed", not what is exempt from the infringing. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers to intentionally misinterpret their words.

you were there? Or did you do the time travel thing?

While you're back, could you ask them what "well regulated" means wrt a militia?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by legion

Talk to Wayne about letting more than 100 characters be used in poll option titles.

Besides, the well-regulated militia is a justification for the "shall not be infringed", not what is exempt from the infringing. It's disrespectful to the founding fathers to intentionally misinterpret their words.

The extent to what you guys spin things is mind-numbing. You would feel so at home in a leadership position in a Communist state.

Hope your trip back from channeling the Founding Fathers is safe.

[red-beard]

Todd,

Read the record of the 1st congress. It was focused on nothing but passing amendments, so that the Constitution would hold together. The Anti-Federalists were a group who were very concerned about this new Federal Government. THEY were instrumental in the restrictions placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution.

The only real debate on what is now the 2nd Amendment was whether to include language about conscientious objectors as being able to avoid military service. It was not included.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I believe local/state restrictions will be upheld in the form of "reasonable" restrictions. This leaves the door open for interpretation of "reasonable" and naturally keeps lawyers employed for the next 50 years fighting over the meaning of it. This is not really the outcome I'd like to see, but I'd be shocked to see even this "conservative" court uphold "shall not be infringed" to actually mean "shall not be infringed" meaning the citizenry can own whatever they want. This is (IMHO) what the FF intended, but I'd be very surprised to see the court interpret it that way.

But one can hope. . .

I will, however, hold off on buying an AR-15 until the court's decision. How badly would it suck to buy a stupid 10-round-limited setup only to have the court lift state/local restrictions and then have to go out and buy a whole new lower receiver assembly? Not likely, but knowing my luck, that's what would happen if I bought one today.

Aww hell, maybe I'll just go get a shotgun instead for the time being.

There are some CA-legal AR15s that have a removable magazine, but you have to use a tool to release the latch (like, the point of a bullet). Perhaps those could be easily converted to a "normal" AR15 when the time comes.

At a minimum, I'd think the Supreme Court will permit states/cities from imposing reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

Read today's WSJ article on the topic - Thomas has hinted he might believe in an individual right to own weapons, Roberts has never said anything about it. But Scalia has written that the federal govt may not prohibit individuals from owning weapons for self-defense but that the states may do so, and there are four justices who dissented in the Court's decision to invalidate part of the Brady law. So odds don't look so great for a finding of broad and strong individual right.

[Moneyguy1]

I am confused. How do the concepts of "militia" and State National Guard equate?

[id10t]

Moneyguy1 - esp. since the nat'l guard was created more than 100 years after the 2nd...

[jyl]

The militia of 200 years ago was a group of armed citizens who would come together as an organized military force to defend their state in times of crisis. Back then, the state was the primary political, military, and economic entity, the federal government was small and weak and many wanted it to stay that way. They still remembered the tyranny of the English king.

(Quite different from today's imperial Presidency, with the Administration and its tame lawyers asserting the inherent right to do whatever it likes - torture, imprison, spy, whatver - even if it violates our law, and showing no particular interest in states' rights. I think the founding fathers would view Bush/Cheney as a close cousin to the English monarchs of their day.)

Anyway, I suppose that, looking around at today's USA, each State's National Guard might be the closest thing that we have to the old "militia". So, as judges and scholars and activists try to make the centuries-old words of the Second Amendment mean something in today's reality, some will point to the Nat'l Guard.

It is kind of silly, I think. As the Constitution gets older and older, there will be inevitably be some bit of it that becomes obsolete - without any real application to the USA of 2007, or 2207. We've rewritten or amended away the obsolete bits about slavery and emancipation, but other bits haven't gotten such attention.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Seems to me we could use armed state militias today more than ever before. Especially CA, AZ, NM, and TX.

[Dueller]

Here's a link to the actual case if anyone cares to read it:


http://66.161.141.177/cgi-bin/texis/web/uscop/+ZLebVoGerxbnmne-WbGwwwwxFqEGhc63MqwwMcpsr38s89owzvn3W/svindex.html?doc=1

[tabs]

The Supremes are gona uphold the Lower Courts decision.

The 2nd does infer that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to bear arms.

In the old days the Militia was an ad hoc group that was there to defend their town, village etc. from the depredations of the Indians, French, Bandits and other nefarious dudes. If the people who lived there didn't do it nobody would or could. The Brits marched on Lexington and Concord to TAKE AWAY the the guns and ammunition of the local populace hereafter known as the militia.

The National Guard of today is in reality an arm of the Federal Government. How many tours in Iraq have they done again???

Twenty years ago it was heresy to say that guns in the hands of the people is what protects our freedoms. Today it is closer to reality than many would like to believe. That is an unfortunate state of affairs.

NOW here is the THOUGHT for the day. As Gun Control has spread through the land so has the diminution of peoples freedoms. Look at the ban on smoking, trans fats, the PC climate, the excesses of the Patriot Act etc. It is all done in the name of the common good, forcing everyone to fit into the common mold of compliance or risk being labeled a criminal.

I'm sorry folks but the common good DOES NOT recognize whats good for TABS. Ultimately only Tabs knows what is good for Tabs.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

First it'll be just guns, but someday, it'll be spoons.

Stay ever vigilant.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Stay ever vigilant.

I know you have a smirk on your face as you post this. However you are the one that needs to listen to your own advise. The wolf comes in the clothing of the Progressive. "We are only doing it for the common good."

[Hugh R]

Back in the 1700s we didn't have a draft. Hence we had the militia, which was you and your neighbors coming together to provide for the common defense. So meof you are assuming that because we had a draft for many years, and now have a standing army/air force/navy, etc. that the right to keep and bear arms was somehow taken away by legislative fiat.

You don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. Show me the part of the constitution that says I can't own one. I have no problem with reasonable regulation, the problem is who gets to say what is reasonable? I remember a decade or more ago in Texas you could go to a 24 hour hunting supply/liquor store and buy a gun at 3AM and a bottle of whiskey and walk out with both, as long as you had a Texas drivers license. That's a little too loose for me.