Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

The real danger to liberty that exists every time the supreme court looks at one of these lower court rulings is this:

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

or "assault weapons", or certain explosives, or handguns without special permitting, or certain ammunition, ....

There is the continued risk of encroachment every time this comes up.

The second amendment seems pretty simple and straight forward:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

www.usconstitution.net...

It seems now that some citizens wish to continue to redefine what was meant by these fairly simple 27 words.

Originally posted by West Coast
The "militia" is the PEOPLE! At the time the second amendment was put into place, there was no standing army, just common folk. I think the judges are misinterpreting the second amendment.

Yes! I was reading through this topic and was thinking that same thing, yet I couldn't seem to find the right wording for it. Right on the spot.

reply to post by percievedreality

Thanks for the link.I've read this post, and rest assured,I'm behind Montana on this.
I was a frequent visitor to Montana because of it's beauty and friendly people.I was also a frequent visitor to Texas for the same reasons.
In all honesty,I've never felt safer anywhere else.
When the rules are unambiguous,and folks are decent,people tend to live together more harmoniously.

In the past I actually ran the 2nd Amendment through different programs to get a better idea of the intent.I can't recall these programs because it was over a year ago,but the out come was that people were allowed to bear arms and 'militia' was secondary.
I wish I had screen saved the results.

heliosprime

I understand what is going on, my friend, but still until that day comes when the ban on guns become a law we pretty much still have the second amendment on our side.

I am a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment, a member of the 73 or 74% of americans that know that the 2nd grants individuals the right to own and bear arms. Anyone that knows history and the context of such can not disagree with an americans individual right to own firearms. The entire purpose of the 2nd amendments was to allow the American people a way of protecting thier God given right to freedom from those that want to take that freedom away through the use of political cow patty's and encroachment of the 2nd amendment.

Encroachment is the american way of taking away our rights. An illegal bullet here, an evil looking weapon there, a national database everywhere. Buyer beware!! we must stop the encroacment of our rights. Before we know it our 2nd amendment rights will have been encroached upon so much, what arms we are allowed to own will be as useful as an 8 track tape. Perhaps that is part of the plan. Do those that wish to steal our freedoms really worry about the gun issue when they know they can control the arms to relics and antiques. How much good is a relic or antique against such modern weapons that exist today.

Our right to bear arms was a way to protect and guarantee our freedoms. In order to protect those freedoms we as individuals or as a collective militia, should be able to own and bear the same arms that are issued to our own military. I'm not suggesting that your neigbor be allowed to own an atomic weapon or have access to high explosives but in order to effectively fight a threat from within our own government we should have the ability to make it a fair fight.

Last, maybe having the second amendment before the supreme court is a good thing. If 74% of americans believe in 2nd amendment rights we should use our majority to clarify what "shall not be infringed upon" means and what will not be tolerated from the federal government. I say lets start a new constitutional amendment that will put an end to this political garbage instituted by a few marshmellows because they are in fear of what will happen when the people wake up.

yeah i think its a foolish Idea to even think about messing with what our Bill of rights an constitution have been documented already,

I for one know you take away our right to bear arms, an you have just declared this Not to be America.

And I will take that as a threat from out government to further control us, We the people have the right to overthrow any parties who want to take away our right... thats why we have the constitution, to PROTECT America an what is was founded on.

As dirty harry said " Come on punk, ask yourself...... Do you feel lucky? "

when I joined the Air force, I honestly meant that I would Die for this country, and that mantality still holds ground today........





[edit on 27-2-2008 by Trance Optic]

After further research I've discovered that many States added their own provisos to the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not from the U.S. so forgive me if I've pointed out the obvious.I found it interesting.
2nd Amendment
The top portion of the page has the pertinent information.
It appears clear to me that some States say "people" are allowed to bear arms and other States are more restrictive in the language.
Maybe States opposing the restriction of firearm ownership should offer a proficiency/competence course and hand out 'State Militia' cards.
I'm sure someone will say that I'm grasping as well.......I just despise seeing people lose their rights.
I think what really needs to happen is for Americans to give their government a serious awakening.Regardless of what the government says,the PEOPLE are in charge and pay the bills.

The United Nations has been wanting to disarm Americans for years now. I recommend the book The Global War on Your Guns

Obama is one of these politicians who doesn't want Americans to have guns. He's against hunters even having guns.

The right to own weapons in this country won't be a right much longer. The day is coming...

Well, from what I have seen lately, gun laws are being made not to ensure that only state militias have guns but to be used specifically to disarm the state militias. The line between state's rights and preserving the union as a whole is truly a fine line and was challenged once resulting in a bloody war. I think if this article of the Constitution is continually attacked, we might see it become a another issue capable of dividing the union.


The right to own guns is important for two reasons;

1. No matter how many laws are passed for the "protection of the people", an individual bent on assualting person or property will not bother to follow that law either. The knowledge that a person has the means to protect themselves is a better deterent.

2. The ability of the people to overthrow an unjust govenment. The citizens of the U.S. should have comparable armament to the military under the control of the government. Yes, I know many of you will disagree but you are wrong. This is the biggest drive of the powers that be to disarm the population. A few people fighting for a cause of which they truly believe can and have stood their ground against soldiers who were merely following orders.


"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams

At least for now you can still obtain guns. Here in Canada we aren't as lucky. I used to shoot competitively and my father and I used to have quite a collection of firearms ranging from pistols to assault rifles then the laws changed and we had the majority of our collection taken away. Sure, you can get a licence for shotty's ,a few pistols and some rifles but you can't get any of the good stuff anymore not to mention we have a gun registry so the powers that be will know exactly who has firearms and what type..........probably so they know who to hunt down if the crap ever hit the fan and a civil war broke out or for that matter a "Red Dawn" scenario.

reply to post by citizen truth


The first ten amendments were ratified by 100% of the states that existed at the time of ratification. [proposed 11/25/1789] It took 811 days to finish the ratification.

As they are allowed to, as long as it does not interfere with the US constitution, states are allowed to make their own provisions to further elucidate their stance on constitutional amendments. They are also allowed to ratify or reject a US constitutional amendment.

The first ten amendments, commonly known as a group as the Bill of Rights, were all ratified at once. The amendments were proposed on September 25, 1789.

# State Date *
1 New Jersey Nov 20, 1789
2 Maryland Dec 19, 1789
3 North Carolina Dec 22, 1789
4 South Carolina Jan 19, 1790
5 New Hampshire Jan 25, 1790
6 Delaware Jan 28, 1790
7 New York Feb 24, 1790
8 Pennsylvania Mar 10, 1790
9 Rhode Island Jun 7, 1790
10 Vermont Nov 3, 1791
11 Virginia Dec 15, 1791 *
12 Massachusetts Mar 2, 1939
13 Georgia Mar 18, 1939
14 Connecticut Apr 19, 1939
Ratified in 811 days

www.usconstitution.net...

I also thought it was interesting to note that only 14 states have ratified the Bill of Rights.

Also which states have specifically rejected some US constitutional amendments.

The first thing any dictatorship does is ban it's people from owning and training with firearms. (Or other weapons in the past.) Any government who denies its people the right to bear arms has slaves for citizens. Without firearms we would be at the mercy of the police and military.

I'm a bit of a gun nut. I own eight, guns, which to some this is a lot and to other it's nothing, but I train with them at my families farm, and the local gun range all the time. If the government bans guns, I'm joining a local militia and fighting to the end.

My life is meaningless without freedom, and I refuse to let my children grow up in a dictatorship or police state. I will gladly lay down my life for freedom!

Long live the Republic, God save the United States.

reply to post by kerontehe


I appreciate the history lesson and the time you took to explain it.This certainly clears things up for me.

we have a gun registry so the powers that be will know exactly who has firearms and what type..........probably so they know who to hunt down if the crap ever hit the fan and a civil war broke out or for that matter a "Red Dawn" scenario.

That would be correct assuming that everyone who obtained a gun registered it.

reply to post by citizen truth
Glad to help. I learned long ago that to truly understand a subject, it helps to assist someone else in their understanding.

Based on my personal estimates in many years of polling gun owners, I would be surprised if more than 70% of the existing firearms in the US are accurately registered.

Independent lot seems to feel it's none of big brother's business.

I am not betting on the fact that SCOTUS will rule with common sense, or rule with the Constitution for that matter. Given the current situation in this country, I cant see them ruling in favor of gun owners.

This is one of 2 lines in the sand of I have drawn that would force me to disappear off the government radar, and I truly hope I dont need to make the necessary changes in my life to become invisible. That being said, I've been stocking up on guns and accessories for the past 2 years just in case

Wholesale accounts come in handy

Originally posted by Trance Optic
when I joined the Air force, I honestly meant that I would Die for this country, and that mantality still holds ground today........

youre not alone brother, though i was army

ive said before, ill say again now, ill likely say again later.

without the 2nd amendment the constitution and the bill of rights are just very old toilet paper.

i live in cali now while my wifes stationed here and i dont hate it but because of the gun laws here...soon as she's done its taillights outta here.

oh, and FYI, yes, with the backround checks and registration theres a paper trail. but, that only applies to licensed dealers. if you buy a gun from me for cash and a handshake...thats still legal just something to consider folks

Originally posted by citizen truth
reply to post by kerontehe

 

I appreciate the history lesson and the time you took to explain it.This certainly clears things up for me.

we have a gun registry so the powers that be will know exactly who has firearms and what type..........probably so they know who to hunt down if the crap ever hit the fan and a civil war broke out or for that matter a "Red Dawn" scenario.

That would be correct assuming that everyone who obtained a gun registered it.

True enough.

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.

I do not own a gun of any kind, at this time.

Despite living in a city, in what was, at one time considered to be a high crime area of the city, in fact; I do not now, nor have I ever, felt the need to own a gun "for (personal) protection".


I do believe it would be better if no else owned guns.



However, that being said, I DO see this action as a threat to what many percieve as their right under the Constitution.

In their defense, I stand oposed to any ruling that might diminish or delete that long assumed, if perceived, right.


In short, I may not agree with you, but I defend your right to disagree.


I might also warn that those who argue that "The People Are the militia" may well be leaving their case open to a legal broad-side.


It does not matter whether or not the "People are the Militia", what may matter more is the Court's interpetation of what is meant by the Constitutional specification:

Well Regulated


It is entirely possible that the Court may rule that the public at large does NOT comprise a Well Regulted militia.



Does an Unregulated militia enjoy the same constitional protections vis-a-vis bearing arms, as a well regulated one?

The Constitution was written with it's first ten"bill of rights"for the BENIFIT of the people.The second amendment gives the citizen the right to keep and bare arms and provides the states with the right to form milita from its citizenry.The National Guard is no longer state milita,as it is under the control of the Dept.of the Army.The right to keep and bare arms was meant to be a deterant.The founding fathers knew that power corrupts.Citizen held arms are a threatening reminder to the government ,that the people have the power to defend themselves.
The Constitution was not written FOR the Government.The second amendment in particular states these rights "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
All the gun controll laws are unconstitutional!!

If they take away the basic right for citizens to bear arms, they will soon realize why it was there in the first place. Our right to bear arms is our right to be protected from a government that would take away those weapons.

On top of that, how would they force people to give up their weapons? The military is full of gun rights advocates. I would say 80% of the people I serve with would be against such a thing and would stand up against the government on the side of the people.

If I wrote a book titled "How to start a Civil War in Modern America" it would advocate taking away the second amendment right. That is all you had to do. People would revolt, and they would have weapons to revolt with. The military would be split and the only way to disarm us would be to bring in 'international peacekeepers', thus bringing in the NWO.