Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned

When you begin to hear people beginning to say,that guns are for miltias only,and not individuals.You can begin to see a bigger picture of what might be done one day.You may not have the right to bear arms.

Well then again slaves dont need guns,now do they?
To start wanting to erase parts of our constitution is the beginning of the end of this country.Not that the Patriot Act,HR6166, havent begun that already.
A police State isnt that far off,IMO.

(Tbo.com)-WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
hosted.ap.org...

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
hosted.ap.org...

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
hosted.ap.org...

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.
hosted.ap.org...

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
hosted.ap.org...

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
hosted.ap.org...

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?hosted.ap.org...

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"
hosted.ap.org...

The case is: Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041.
hosted.ap.org...

How dare they!? Insinuate the Constitution doesn't protect us, We The People!?!?!?!

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

Definitions:

Militia

mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Paramilitary

par·a·mil·i·tar·y (pār'ə-mĭl'ĭ-těr'ē) Pronunciation Key
adj. Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.

United States

Main article: militia (United States)

There is a long history of militias in the United States, starting before the country became a country, with the colonial militias normally consisting of all adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. This practice was continued after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, and remained relatively unchanged until the late 1800s. After the Civil War, state guard units composed of select militia were created. After 1903, the militia was divided into two groups, unorganized and organized. Organized units were created from portions of the former state guards and became state National Guard units. Some states later created State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Privately organized militias, not affiliated with any government organization, and usually formed by citizens suspicious of the activities and politics of Federal and state governments, blossomed in the mid 1990s, then faded.

Unorganized, or Constitutional Militias, are citizen groups who espouse the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States in regard to the right to keep and bear arms (see Second Amendment to the United States Constitution). Constitutional Militias train in the proper and safe use of firearms, that they may be effective if called upon to uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism. [citation needed]

According to Title 10, USC, Section 311, all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 not serving in the armed forces or state national guard units are considered the unorganized militia, as well as all commissioned female officers of state national guard units.

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state..." --George Mason, declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788.

source


Where do they (attorneys for the District of Columbia) get off saying the Second Amendment Right we all share wouldn't apply to individuals... only militias? Do the attorneys not understand what a militia is?

Originally posted by Black_Fox
To start wanting to erase parts of our constitution is the beginning of the end of this country.Not that the Patriot Act,HR6166, havent begun that already.
A police State isnt that far off,IMO.

I agree entirely. If the steps now being taken actually do strip the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution and the rights we all share, we're screwed. The 2nd Amendment was in fact put in place to ensure the Federal Government they established did not, does not, and will not get too big.

The 2nd Amendment, with no way to construe it, is the only real "Cheques and Balances" we have to keep the United States of America "free".


They won't take my ability to protect my loved ones, myself, or my country from the evil and corrupt. Not a snowball's chance in hell.


Great thread Black_Fox!

[edit on 12/8/2006 by Infoholic]

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Remember the founding fathers have said that we the people as a whole can pistol whip congress and the government if they get out of hand.

Well ya know, if that's how it's going to be played then let's form militias.

I'm sick of them erasing the constitution. This needs to stop right now.

And one more thing..

I know a big state that won't take this lightly. The government is in for a fight on this issue.

It's major cities consist of Dallas and Houston, in case you didn't know what state I was talking about.

That's my HOME!!

Well ya know, if that's how it's going to be played then let's form militias.

I'm sick of them erasing the constitution. This needs to stop right now.

The way I see it, that won't help. The language of the amendment allows them to qualify 'well regulated' and disband all those groups that won't play ball.

Read Fahrenheit 451 and replace books with guns - that's how I think it's going to be.

Only problem is, you can't memorize a gun...

Or can you?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
[The way I see it, that won't help. The language of the amendment allows them to qualify 'well regulated' and disband all those groups that won't play ball.

You mean disband a militia? I don't think the anyone is allowed to disband a militia.

Nevermind I was thinking of disarm. Congress or anyone else is not allowed to disarm a militia but disband I dunno.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by AMANNAMEDQUEST]

I did a blog post on this not long ago, but I'll rewrite some of it here.

It's clear what the Founding Father's intent was for the Second Amendment, simply by looking at quotes on the subject.

Originally spoken by George Washington:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

Originally written by Thomas Jefferson:

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Originally written by Thomas Jefferson:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Originally spoken by Samuel Adams:

[T]he said Constitution [should] be never construed to authorize Congress [...] to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...

This is precisely the reason that Libertarians believe in completely unrestricted rights to own weapons. Including automatic weapons. You may think that's unnecessary, but take another look at the Constitution. It doesn't authorize the possessing of certain kinds of arms -- it says the right will not be infringed.

Hunting rifles and handguns aren't going to provide any kind of threat to the government. For there to be a true balance of power, citizens should be able to own any kind of weapon they please. And why not? Criminals can get weapons whether they're illegal or not. Law abiding citizens should be able to do the same.

Clearly the federal government has already exceeded Jefferson's fears. They do not obey the Constitution at all. The Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility of defending the nation, ratifying treaties, a couple other things. It does not authorize a federal police force. It does not authorize federal money for schools. In fact, it doesn't even authorize a federal income tax. It certainly doesn't authorize federal gun control.

If they come for my guns, I will give them the bullets first.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
This is precisely the reason that Libertarians believe in completely unrestricted rights to own weapons. Including automatic weapons. You may think that's unnecessary, but take another look at the Constitution. It doesn't authorize the possessing of certain kinds of arms -- it says the right will not be infringed.

Hunting rifles and handguns aren't going to provide any kind of threat to the government. For there to be a true balance of power, citizens should be able to own any kind of weapon they please. And why not? Criminals can get weapons whether they're illegal or not. Law abiding citizens should be able to do the same.

Clearly the federal government has already exceeded Jefferson's fears. They do not obey the Constitution at all. The Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility of defending the nation, ratifying treaties, a couple other things. It does not authorize a federal police force. It does not authorize federal money for schools. In fact, it doesn't even authorize a federal income tax. It certainly doesn't authorize federal gun control.

If they come for my guns, I will give them the bullets first.

Speaking of Libertarians....

Here's another one speaking the truth.

3 minute Video

Stan Jone (Libertarian Senate Candidate 2006) speaking about the North American Union during the 06 Senate Debate.

I applaud Stan for speaking the truth no matter the outcome for his benefit.

I know it doesn't have much to do with the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment will be lost if the North American Union takes place.

[edit on 12/10/2006 by Infoholic]

southern cross, unrestricted right to bear arms?
so we all get our own tactical nuclear warheads?

i believe in the right to bear arms, within limits
honestly, i don't see creating a military within the country that is there just in case the government messes up will help
all it would do is create instability
we'd have our own version of hezbollah

It isn't the creation of a military, though. It's the enabling of an armed populace that can become a military if necessary. Personal nuclear devices would be a bit much, but that's so extremely unlikely to happen, anyway.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
southern cross, unrestricted right to bear arms?
so we all get our own tactical nuclear warheads?

i believe in the right to bear arms, within limits
honestly, i don't see creating a military within the country that is there just in case the government messes up will help
all it would do is create instability
we'd have our own version of hezbollah

Our Founding Fathers never wrote the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in regards to what technology would be available in the current years.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to grant everyone the same ability to be the final system of "Cheques and Balances" towards a corrupt government body.

Instability? Are you saying that everyone lying down and accepting the loss of the freedoms, liberties, and rights granted to us by the blood of our Founding Fathers and countless other American lives to provide us with said freedoms, liberties, and rights, would be better? That would create "instability" behind the founding of our great nation.

hezbollah is a group of radicals that want to force the same religious belief... they are a terrorist entity... terrorizing people to believe what they believe.

We, the people, fighting for our unalienable freedoms, rights, and liberties is the complete opposite. Why, you might ask? Because some of our freedoms would actually include religion (you don't have to have the same as me), speech (you can voice your opinions, as they cannot), bear arms (for the free people to overthrow the corrupt government, which they cannot), petitioning the government for a redress of grievances (demanding answers from "our" representatives, which they cannot), and many many more.

The final straw of protecting the freedoms we all have, lies in the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

And if that means I work hard enough to earn money to purchase materials for, and I have the knowledge to make, a nuke... then so be it. I have that right....

But, I would not have the right to use said nuke in a terrorist form, as which hezbollah in fact would.

Just to bring this thread out of the depths of the bowels of ATS... an update on this particular thread...




Federal Appeals court overturns D.C. longstanding handgun ban!

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.

The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district's requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.

In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

source