Individual's Right to Bear Arms at Issue

The Supreme Court gets to write on a blank slate when it takes up the meaning of the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" and the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

[Old School]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[GunShowOnTheNet]

There is NO "blank slate", and the Supreme Court does NOT get to arbitrarily deem it so. To Wit:

The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirgi...

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

“Afforded us by God & Nature”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AffordedGo...

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature...

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/God&Natu...

Life, Liberty and Property
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LifeLibertyP...

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/George...

"the overruling law of self preservation"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser...

'for the common defence'(?)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRi...

"The Right to Self Defense"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right...

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat...

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:

Origins
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.ht...

Precedent
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&am...

After The Fact
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Conte...

Amendment II and the Law
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/Contents.htm...

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment:

The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AProclamat...

The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.... It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights", Oct. 24, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's 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 & 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 & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

That's RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL 'gun control laws' are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.

[el politico]

I think they hear the case tomorrow.

[Highlander]

Old School wrote:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't be too awful surprised if that gets an entirely 'new' interpretation.

Remember the Kelo decision on eminent domain?
Now they're going to play with the tripwire to see what happens.

Question: How many USSC judges does it take to make a bad decision and cause another revolution?
Ans: At least five.

[el politico]

Have you ever looked at Dave Kopel's site about the other cases that SCOTUS has ruled on gun issues in?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpar...

GErbil boy and "legal expert" hate being reminded of those rulings.

[el politico]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be too awful surprised if that gets an entirely 'new' interpretation.
Remember the Kelo decision on eminent domain?
Now they're going to play with the tripwire to see what happens.
Question: How many USSC judges does it take to make a bad decision and cause another revolution?
Ans: At least five.

Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia

Four to protect

It may be time to yell "Wolverine!"

[Highlander]

el politico wrote:

Have you ever looked at Dave Kopel's site about the other cases that SCOTUS has ruled on gun issues in?
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpar...
GErbil boy and "legal expert" hate being reminded of those rulings.

Well, THAT was interesting!

I may end up eating more than a few words ...

[Highlander]

el politico wrote:

<quoted text>
Alito
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Four to protect
It may be time to yell "Wolverine!"

Well, according to the article, even Ginsberg comes out on the 'right of the People' side of the argument.

We'll see. I'm sure the press will be filled with accounts of the arguments, and the pundits will 'punditing.'

[da bros]

KEEP ON FIGHTING, KEEP OUR GUNS AND LOTS OF AMMO. WE WILL BE USING THEM IN THIS COUNTRY SOOD IF WE KEEP LETTING IN ALL THESE FOOLS, LIKE WE HAVE BEEN

[Where Is My America]

D.C. is not a state and that seems to be missing in so many opinions.

This means one of two things .

1) D.C. citizens are by law allowed to be treated differently then citizens of the states which would throw in to question almost every constitutional question that has become before the court.

2) The Second amendment like the other nine apply equally to D.C. citizens and there for it is a constitutional question whether it is an individuals right.

3) If it is ruled a states right how would this apply and how can the court ignore the fact that D.C. not being a state would have elected to hear this case in the first place.

4) The simple fact that the court elected to hear the case makes it defacto a individuals right as a citizen of the United States of America which clearly D.C. residents are.

5) The true nature of this case is if local government have the power to decide on issues which are outlined in the Bill of Rights.

[Highlander]

Where Is My America wrote:

D.C. is not a state and that seems to be missing in so many opinions.
This means one of two things .
1) D.C. citizens are by law allowed to be treated differently then citizens of the states which would throw in to question almost every constitutional question that has become before the court.
2) The Second amendment like the other nine apply equally to D.C. citizens and there for it is a constitutional question whether it is an individuals right.
3) If it is ruled a states right how would this apply and how can the court ignore the fact that D.C. not being a state would have elected to hear this case in the first place.
4) The simple fact that the court elected to hear the case makes it defacto a individuals right as a citizen of the United States of America which clearly D.C. residents are.
5) The true nature of this case is if local government have the power to decide on issues which are outlined in the Bill of Rights.

In relation to number [5], from my point of view, the ~reasonable~ issue would be one of safety only, i.e., not shooting a firearm carelessly in a thickly settled area (common sense), noise regulations, and such.

But certainly none of the nonsense we put up with now, and that includes CCW's.

From where I see things, if the Court declares a right of the people —and it should— then one simply cannot license a right. And, if it comes out on that side of things, then states with open carry only will find that their state constitutions will need to be revised.

We'll see.

[John from Boca]

Plain an simple, guns in citizents hands means lower crime rate:
READ THIS:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php...

Do you want criminals the only ones carrying guns?

Why this is even an issue?

[BCL]

It's interesting to see how liberals are all in favor of accentuating the 1st amendment rights as much as possible while wanting to curb 2nd amandment rights -- and at the same conservatives want to curb first amendment rights while accentuating 2nd amendment rights! Hipocracy knows no bounds.

[BCL]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
In relation to number [5], from my point of view, the ~reasonable~ issue would be one of safety only, i.e., not shooting a firearm carelessly in a thickly settled area (common sense), noise regulations, and such.
But certainly none of the nonsense we put up with now, and that includes CCW's.
From where I see things, if the Court declares a right of the people —and it should— then one simply cannot license a right. And, if it comes out on that side of things, then states with open carry only will find that their state constitutions will need to be revised.
We'll see.

I don't know about that licensing issue. People are required to register to vote -- and that is a constitutional right. The most that could happen would be that fees for a license would be struck down (as was done for voter registration fees and grandfather clauses.

[el politico]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, according to the article, even Ginsberg comes out on the 'right of the People' side of the argument.
We'll see. I'm sure the press will be filled with accounts of the arguments, and the pundits will 'punditing.'

Gives you some more hope for the DC ruling. Sandra Day OConnor was the scarey one. She said that the Supreme Court needed to evaluate law not based on the US Constitution but against international law. I am glad she is gone.

[FL native]

If the Court rules that you must be part of a Militia to own guns it will in fact encourage formation of such groups.The effect will be to create fringe groups.

[POP]

We are a Nation of guns. They will not be able to take away peoples guns until the last one of us is dead. I don't believe in guns my self, but don't deny a persons right to own one, (You know how testy gun nuts can be about their phallic symbols). However, I don't think hand guns should be legal. But it's all to late for that now. They will never be able to take guns of any kind from us. That is why no country would ever try to invade us. They know every one has a gun.

[Shiftless3spd]

BCL wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know about that licensing issue. People are required to register to vote -- and that is a constitutional right. The most that could happen would be that fees for a license would be struck down (as was done for voter registration fees and grandfather clauses.

May have something there--IF that same voter registration permits one to purchase own,and carry a gun!

[Girl from Sunrise]

Isn't DC one of the cities with the highest crime rate, even though their residents are banned to own guns? Maybe that's the problem, criminals will always find the ways to get guns in order to committ their crimes, and DC is a paradise for them because they know that decent people don't have the means to defend themselves. Maybe it's time to give the decent people of DC the chance to own guns and defend themselves...that's a constitutional right.