[LAR-15]

Second Amendment: No Individual Right to
Keep and Bear Arms

“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 Second Amendment is perhaps the most misunderstood of the amendments contained in the bill of rights. In fact, according to a 1999 CBS poll, 48 percent of the American public mistakenly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees a virtually unfettered right to arm oneself in defense of life, property and against the possibility of government-imposed martial law. Contrary to public opinion, historians, scholars, and most importantly the courts, have virtually all concluded that: the Second Amendment was designed to protect state organized militias rather than the individual right to own a gun.

The Supreme Court has never struck down a gun control measure as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Federal laws that ban machine guns, as well as city ordinances banning handgun possession, have remained on the books for decades—despite vigorous court challenges. For all its posturing, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been reluctant to bring its Second Amendment arguments into court. (The last time it did so was in an attempt to overturn the 1981 Morton Grove, Illinois, handgun ban; the NRA appeal was roundly rejected on both the federal and state levels.)

One of the most important cases upholding the collective, militia interpretation is Lewis v. United States. The 1980 majority opinion, joined by then Chief Justice Warren Burger and Current Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that the federal prohibition on felons possessing firearms is constitutional. In Lewis, the Court stated, “These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.” The opinion listed voting, the practice of medicine and even holding office in labor organizations as “activities far more fundamental that the possession of a firearm.”

Today the Second Amendment functions primarily as a smoke screen ceaselessly conjured by the gun lobby to obscure and ultimately avoid a substantive debate about the role that guns play in American society. The federal government is clearly free to regulate the possession and transfer of firearms in order to promote public safety.

[Standing Wolf]

In fact, according to a 1999 CBS poll...

C.B.S. polls never have anything to do with fact.

[longeyes]

Since when do our Constitutional rights depend on CBS polls, one way or the other?

[SB88LX]

"The federal government is clearly free to regulate the possession and transfer of firearms in order to promote public safety"

"public safety." If that aint a red herring I dont know what is.

[geekWithA.45]

LAR-15:

In the absence of a citation, we must assume that you are the author of this sentiment, which strikes me as a surprising turnabout for you.

That's a polite way of saying that while it's interesting that someone said this, but without knowing who, its impact is impossible to evaluate.

eg: if it comes from the Bradyite camp, then we can universal file it with the rest.

Incidentally, the writer of this article entirely misquotes and misinterprets Lewis, who was NOT arguing amendment 2. He was arguing amendments 4,5 & 6 in an effort to collaterally attack his original felony conviction (b & e), which would then undermine his felon in posession conviction.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=445&invol=55#65

[LAR-15]

It comes from regulateguns.org

Not me

[hoppinglark]

I thought you were tyring to scare us for halloween...

*edit,
okay I checked that website out and here's thier meta tag list

"regulate guns, gun control, gun-control, gun, guns, control, gun safety, firearms,
violence, guns, ammunition, regulation, gun regulation, regulatory, gun violence, consumer safety, gun legislation,
second amendment, Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, brady bill, unsafe, NRA, national rifle association,
shoot, gun lobby, gun law, gun rights, concealed, weapons, handguns, childproof, safety, crime, public policy, laws,
concealed weapons, gun safety, gun-related injuries, gun-related deaths, ammunitions, triggers, dangerous, accidents,
shooting, shot, targets, bullets, bullet wounds, loaded guns, firearms accidents, eddie eagle"

these people need to really get a grip...
Firearms aren't regulated????
I guess I just wasted my time and money buying from a FFL...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

For all its posturing, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been reluctant to bring its Second Amendment arguments into court. (The last time it did so was in an attempt to overturn the 1981 Morton Grove, Illinois, handgun ban; the NRA appeal was roundly rejected on both the federal and state levels.)

Uh... maybe somebody should mention Emerson, Silveira, the DC handgun ban, the injunctions in New Orleans or any of the other numerous instances of the NRA bringing Second Amendment arguments into court (sometimes successfully).

[beerslurpy]

The NRA didnt bring Silviera v Lockyer. As a matter of fact, nearly every 2nd amendment litigator of prominence told Gorksy (dunno about the spelling) that his case would fail in the 9th circuit and possibly create very damaging precedent. And it did!

[ssr]

Since when do our Constitutional rights depend on CBS polls, one way or the other?


Since when do our Constitutional Rights even depend upon what the Supreme Court says (other than something is deemed legal or illegal after they say it). Simply saying, if what the court decides on any certain issue totally depends upon the current makeup of the court, then what they say or decide is all crap and they're full of it anyway.

[AJ Dual]

Funny...

The Federalist Papers say otherwise.

Oh well.

[JPM70535]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see how the Founding Fathers could have written the 1st,4th, 6th etc. as being individual rights, and yet allocate only collective status to the 2nd. It just makes no sense, and IMO they would never hav done such a thing.

Today with Chuckie and Teddy and Hillary, I would have to agree, thank God they didn't get to pen the amendments.

JPM

[beerslurpy]

Some people are just too smart to let themselves be mislead by the plain english meaning of a sentence.

[setxcypress]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see how the Founding Fathers could have written the 1st,4th, 6th etc. as being individual rights, and yet allocate only collective status to the 2nd. It just makes no sense, and IMO they would never hav done such a thing.


+1

The BOR is filled to the brim with personal rights and even the ninth and tenth amendments give us even more that are not outlined in the BOR. I say everyone should reread it sometime on their own, and not let anyone tell them what it says.

[Molon Labe]

Since when do our Constitutional Rights even depend upon what the Supreme Court says (other than something is deemed legal or illegal after they say it). Simply saying, if what the court decides on any certain issue totally depends upon the current makeup of the court, then what they say or decide is all crap and they're full of it anyway.Exactly.

My rights do not come from the Supreme Court. If (for example) the Supreme Court said I did not have an individual right to keep and near arms, then the Supreme Court would simply be wrong.

Same goes for our Founding Fathers... my rights did not come from them. Nor do they come from the Bill of Rights.

[jpIII]

There is no such thing as a collective right. It's as simple as that.

A group of individuals cannot possess together what they cannot possess independently.

[saltydog]

There is no such thing as a collective right. It's as simple as that!

Well said. There are over 300,000,000 firearms in private hands today. That looks pretty "Individual" to me!:D

But then again its my "right" to be a firearms "collector"! Now thats what I call a "Collective Right"!

[jpIII]

But then again its my "right" to be a firearms "collector"! Now thats what I call a "Collective Right"!

Ok,.. Ok.. you win. I guess there is such a thing as a "collective right".:evil:

funny... very funny:cool:

[Graystar]

They are right.

The Second Amendment does NOT guarantee a virtually unfettered right to arm oneself in defense of life, property and against the possibility of government-imposed martial law.

We have a virtually unfettered right to arm oneself in defense of life, property and against the possibility of government-imposed martial law because it is a basic fundamental right, regardless of the existence of the Second Amendment.