Supreme Court agrees to rule on Constitutional Right to own firearms

Discussion in 'Politics' started by a529612, Nov 20, 2007.

  1. Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms, agreeing to decide an election-year fight over the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban.

    A ruling against Washington would give gun-rights advocates a long-sought legal victory and raise questions about weapons restrictions in New York, Chicago and other cities. The high court has never directly said whether the Constitution's Second Amendment covers people who don't belong to a state-run militia.
  2. Wondering when someone was gonna post that..................

    Gonna be a shitfight.

    It doesnt mention squat about owning a firearm for personal protection-got nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation of the state, as in for example sweden, a true "civilian militia".

    Unless it could be succesfully argued, that a well armed civilian populace itself constitutes a militia-and theres ample evidence that was the intent, though not made so clear in the amendment itself.
  3. maxpi


    maxpi's crime and school shooting reduction plan:

    Guns are legal, people can carry if they are trained marksmen and if they haven't shown that they are too crazy to do so, teachers are all encouraged to carry... gang members and wanted criminals pictures are posted on the internet with dead or alive prices....

    when I am the warlord in charge we will have a very quiet and polite neighborhood because an armed society is a polite society.. :D
  4. Welcome to Mogadishu.
  5. Is that how it works? The US is already an armed society. Always has been, always will be. There are more than 225 million firearms in the US. When was the last US civil war and for what purpose was it for? Mogadishu?
  6. Im sure it's a point about warlords, rather than guns per-se.

    Heh heh, the nra will be all over this like a cheap suit, this is a very direct threat, and its unlikely to work out in their favour, imo.

    Legally, that is-after all, nobody is seriously going to try and confiscate that kind of arsenal. They might try, but........

    Matter of fact, this could really ugly.
  7. Make no mistake about it. This case has far reaching implications.

    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.

    Now, to understand the thinking at the time, see what the states themselves demanded in order to ratify the newly formed constituion ...

    Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

    New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

    Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, 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. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

    New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

    North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."

    Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
  8. Uglier than i thought, i forgot about that state ratification thing.

    The worst thing is, if i can interpret any one of things literally, and come up with half a dozen "correct" arguements for and against, that's crazy.

    Wait a minute-this could be Bush's swan song to either his voter base(gun totin rednecks), or the ultra elite-(hate guns, unless their bodyguards carry 'em)wonder which way it will be twisted.

    Depending on the result, this is revolutionary stuff-the nra, nor the public is going to be content with-what could well be an entirely correct legal interpretation.

    "Well regulated militia" keeps coming up though-same arguements could apply, that joe average with a safe full of varmint rifles , legal ones, should, or could,(they likely are, but has the owner done any military training?oops, terrorist)be well regulated-they might be, but what does that have to do with an individual state, or the defense of it?

    In my opinion, a hell of a lot, but thats beside the point.
    Or the defense of the state, given the constitution itself makes no bones about standing armies, much less conscription? Happened already, too late. A good thing for the world, too, perhaps.

    Its a can of worms, no doubt, im only prepared to guarantee this will come down in favor of overwhelming gun control.
  9. horseman


  10. I support the constitution entierly (and I'm in Canada :D )

    Only our own regimes have the power to take away our rights, not some people overseas. Remember that fact.
    #10     Nov 21, 2007