“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.”
The sentence above has caused plenty of arguments over the years as to its meaning. In my own mind, there is little doubt as to the meaning of that sentence based upon direct quotes by the Founding Fathers during that era, who left very little to the imagination — but there ARE folks who disagree with myself and our nation’s original patriots. “It means the military can have guns!” say the gun-banners. “It means “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” says I.
Now, so it seems, the Supreme Court of the United States of America will FINALLY, DIRECTLY, take on this age-old argument for once and for all, and hopefully, put it to rest forevermore…
From The Washington Post:
High Court to Take D.C. Gun Ban Case
By Robert Barnes
The Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years.
The court’s decision could have broad implications for gun-control measures locally and across the country and will raise a hotly contested political issue just in time for the 2008 elections.
The court will likely hear the case in March, with a decision coming before justices adjourn at the end of June.
For years, legal scholars, historians and grammarians have debated the meaning of the amendment because of its enigmatic wording and odd punctuation… “
One can speak of “enigmatic wording and odd punctuation” all they want, but a FAIR court, which we all know this particular version of the SCOTUS is far from being, wouldn’t just automatically toss out the direct quotes by our Founding Fathers who signed this contract in the first place. Should those be admitted as evidence and allowed, there will be little doubt as to the inevitable outcome of this case — to side with the justices who took the side of Dick A. Heller against the District of Columbia, who, like many other jurisdictions, has ruled against the civil liberty of all Americans to possess the “great equalizer”, where any man or woman can preserve their lives against any other man or woman with ill intent, despite the physical advantages of the would be agressor.
I predict the Republicans of the SCOTUS will rule in favor of our fellow Citizen, Mr. Heller, and the liberals of the SCOTUS will rule against him while the SCOTUS decision will be a split one in favor of Mr. Heller and the Citizenry, while allowing individual states (versus municipalities) to “infringe” upon their residents. Obviously, it would be a hypocritical decision by the Republicans who would be favoring the rights of the individual STATES over the right of the INDIVIDUAL herself, but what else would we expect from a Republican activist court anyway?
In the end, the “blue” states will have their way and so will the “red” ones; the Citizen will lose in yet another one of those typical “non-decision” brands of SCOTUS decision we have all become accustomed to over the last couple of decades. Why? Again, because the Republicans will have their way, and we all know today’s Republican favors the “rights’ of both corporations (gun manufacturers) and states (big “gub’mint”) over ANY individual American.
When, in reality, the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL to Keep And Bear Arms in itself should SPEAK for itself — an “unalienable right”, which has been “endowed by our creator”, to the People, in order to remain secure in their homes and secure against the Republicans’ Police State and the Democrats’ Nanny State — PURE AND SIMPLE…
Grab the popcorn, sit back and watch this one unfold and then — I suppose we’ll see if I’m correct in the end.
***
Other bloggers weigh in, H/T to MemeOrandum: SCOTUS Blog; Hot Air (Right); Comments From Left Field (Left, of course); Wizbang (Right); Daily Kos (Left); Wonkette (Left); Michelle Malkin (Right); Cato At Liberty
Loading ...
7:46 pm on November 20th, 2007 1
the founding fathers really dropped the ball on this one. if they had only rephrased it:
a well regulated millitia is neccesary for the security of a free state SO the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, because a millitia without guns is just a bunch of people in camo.
the scary thing is they’re not only telling us to get a gun and learn how to use it, but also to join or form a millitia.
from wikipedia:
Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote:
“Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.[9]
One example given by Webster of a “power” that the people could resist was that of a standing army:
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
8:08 pm on November 20th, 2007 2
I’m interested in seeing how this one plays out.
8:11 pm on November 20th, 2007 3
Initiative solves problems.
I could be hanging around here bothering GTL, I split a few months ago and got my ass to work.
I built a dock by the lake, a shed and a wall in my trailer, a woodshed and an arctic entryway on my new porch.
Then I felt like ‘blasting away’ at a few idiots who keep interrupting me, but I got out my chainsaw instead and mowed down about three acres of trees and ripped their privacy to shreds.
The right to bear chainsaws.
Trucks, drumsets, and other sonic tools.
The right to take the initiative against our oppressors, and be annoying geeks.
9:11 pm on November 20th, 2007 4
Guns, read the wording of the Writ:
Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:
“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Note that the writ pre-supposes that the RKBA is an individual right not tied to membership in a militia. and the question before the Court is if the DC gun ban violates that right. If there is no individual RKBA, why would the Court be looking into the question of whether or not laws violate it? I think that the wording of the writ itself is a victory for civil rights.
9:12 pm on November 20th, 2007 5
Addendum: I’m sure you already know about
http://www.scotusblog.com
there is good stuff there on issues before the Court.
11:06 pm on November 20th, 2007 6
Teeg! Happy Thanksgiving and Happy Holidays, bro! Good for you with your beautiful home…
Joe — GOOD POINTS, bro!!! Yeah, I linked to the SCOTUS Blog at the bottom of the article. Great site, full of good stuff…
6:39 am on November 21st, 2007 7
Outstanding news. While I am aware that many on the pro-individual rights side of this argument fear a decision against us, I personally welcome the fight. It has been far too long in coming. Decades of incremental anti-gun legislation have choked what is an essential right down to a “privilege” granted at the whim of bureaucrats and self-serving, corrupt politicians. A determination of this issue by SCOTUS will at minimum define clear battle lines for both sides. Win or lose, at least we finally know where we stand.
Bring it on.
9:09 am on November 22nd, 2007 8
Remember, folks; this is the same Supreme Court that gave us Kelo v. New London. Keep that in mind when you trust your rights to the Supreme Court.