DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

pg 36.

We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a wellregulated militia—even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia—is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. [red]We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters’ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right’s most salient political benefit—and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.[/red]

Click to expand...

But [the dissenting opinion's] other main point is that the majority's assertion [...] constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

Click to expand...

One authority cited by the District has attempted to equate
“keep” with “keep up,” a term that had been used in phrases
such as “keep up a standing army” or, as in the Articles of
Confederation, “every state shall keep up a well regulated and
disciplined militia . . . .” See Wills, supra, at 66. The argument
that “keep” as used in “the right of the people to keep . . . Arms”
shares a military meaning with “keep up” as used in “every state
shall keep up a well regulated militia” mocks usage, syntax, and
common sense. Such outlandish views are likely advanced
because the plain meaning of “keep” strikes a mortal blow to the
collective right theory.

Click to expand...

No comment on this from How Appealing?

But [the dissenting opinion's] other main point is that the majority's assertion [...] constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

We also note that at least three current members (and one
former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms”
in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere
soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a
firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (‘keep
and bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in
a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,
and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing,
we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for
“bear Arms.”

Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, but that just sounds crazy. You don't get constitutional rights if you are within the boundaries of the U.S., but not within the boundaries of a state?

Click to expand...

geekWithA.45
What is best in life? Conan knows!
"To crush our enemies, to see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of DiFi, Boxer, Schumer, Sarah Brady, Ted Kennedy, and all the rest of their toxic ilk.

Click to expand...

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Click to expand...