D.C. Argues Gun Rights Only For Militias

[hugh damright]

Hugh, applying the 2A doesn't necessarily mean reconstruct it. The SCOTUS has had to apply the amendments to changes in society and technology. The had to apply the 1A to radio, TV, and ...

I am not so sure about applying it to DC, but IMO applying the 2A to the States absolutely means reconstructing it. We're not talking about some change in technology, like applying the principle of a free press to include a free radio broadcast. I do not accept the analogy.

The sole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government. Can anyone explain to me why the government's power would be limited by only allowing the government or some other "collective" group to have firearms while denying them to citizens?

The government is not a collective. The collectives are the fifty bodies of people that make up the States. Virginians are a collective, a people, a State.

We once had British Troops here to dominate us, and they were supposedly here to protect us, so Virginians declared that a standing army in times of peace is a danger to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is the people of that State, trained to arms and organized into militia. We figured that we could govern ourselves and defend ourselves. And part of governing ourselves is to pass gun laws.

 

[K-Romulus]

I went to the oral argument today

I posted a rough transcript in this thread.

It was pretty interesting, and my notes may give some context to the news article.

 

[Molon Labe]

Court decisions - even those handed down by the SCOTUS - have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of my inalienable rights. So I ignore court decisions as they pertain to my RKBA.

I am the authority on my rights. Not Congress. Not the president. Not the Taco Supreme Court. Not our Founding Fathers. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not John Locke. Me. If a Supreme Court supports my interpretation of my RKBA, then hooray for the Supreme Court. If a Supreme Court disagrees with my RKBA, then the court is wrong, its decision is irrelevant, and I will retain my rights.

 

[Axman]

What's not to understand?

These words, "The people", are used several times in our Constitution.

The Preamble holds the key in the first three words of the Constitution, "We The People, of the United States..."! Following later are these words, "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."!

Then in a few places in our Bill Of Rights...

In the 1st Amendment, "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."!

In the 2nd Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."!

In the 4th Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

In the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The key words here are "The People", what's difficult to understand about these words? Actually, the 9th is the clincher, it basically says that none of these rights is above another and there may be other rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights!!!

 

[thexrayboy]

The SCOTUS will never, I repeat never take any case that has any significant
bearing on the 2nd Amendment.

They simply cannot. If they hear a case such as deciding whether the 9th Circus court ruling is correct or the 5th circuit court, or if they take the case
arguing that DC can or cannot ban guns they will have to take a position.

A position that upholds anti gun laws will put them directly in contradicition with the Constitution. This would create grave problems for them in many areas. The very credibility of the SCOTUS would be called into question. They have already done themselves much damage with rulings such as Kelo vs New London. They certainly don't want to deal with the hot potato of the
2nd Amendment.

If they were to take a case and uphold the 2nd Amendment it would open the door for credible challenges to virtually all gun laws. Again, SCOTUS and the rest of the Feds do not want this to happen either.

The best and only solution to this quandry for the SCOTUS is to stick their collective heads in the sand and pray they never have to actually deal with this issue.

 

[bg]

Again one of our earliest residents states it spot on. >

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and include all men capable of bearing arms." — Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788)

 

[Axman]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the national guard is a military. It gets it's funding through federal monies and is therefore supported through the federal government, not the citizens directly. It (national guard) is therefore a government organization and should not be protected by any of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Manedwolf]

My answer is always that the people who wrote and approved the original statement WERE LAWYERS, at least some of them.

If they meant it to be interpreted otherwise, it would have said:

"the right of members of organized militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It does NOT. It says THE PEOPLE.

 

[XDKingslayer]

The only thing I can see that MAY be construed to say that the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective right, is Article 1 - Section 8 when congress is tasked with arming the militia.

And there is your key to stopping gun control in it's tracks.

You form a militia then petition the goverment to buy your guns for you. All in the name of thwarting terrorism.

 

[Axman]

It does NOT. It says THE PEOPLE.

Yes, and as I pointed out, the phrase "the people" appears several times as plain as day, in the Constitution. I'd also like to point out that the 10th amendment distinguishes the difference between the country, the states and the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This would put the national guard in the power of the U.S. or to the states (although it is federally funded by the standing U.S. military). Therefore, I feel that the national guard is not included in the second amentment.

 

[gunsmith]

wecome to thr by the way,snafu

great handle I wish I had thought of it.

I think this might be a good case to bring before SCOTUS.
I hope they hear it.
Handgun ownership is still common throughout the USA so it would
the lame liars trying to say it's some kind of imaginary collective could be easily proven wrong.

Look, every State has an Assembly does that mean only the Assembly
has the right to assemble?

 

[gc70]

But we are talking about DC laws, not federal laws ... and we are talking about the Second Amendment which has never been incorporated, not the First Amendment which I believe has been incorporated.

The District of Columbia is an interesting exception with respect to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment limits the national government and not the states. However, DC is not in a state - it is a federal district. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress authority "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over DC. Although DC is governed on a day-to-day basis by a local city council, the council's powers are delegated by Congress.

Given its federal status, DC is ironically the only city in which local guns laws (based on powers delegated by Congress) are subject to the prohibition in the Second Amendment.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Is everything in DC a federal matter? I thought DC had local government, and that the gun laws in question are local laws, not federal laws.

Yes, everything in DC is a federal matter; Their local "government" is purely a creation of the federal government for administrative purposes, exists at the federal government's pleasure, and could be abolished tomorrow by passing a law. It has no independent existance like the state governments.

Given its federal status, DC is ironically the only city in which local guns laws (based on powers delegated by Congress) are subject to the prohibition in the Second Amendment.

Well, if you decide to completely ignore the 14th amendment, which was specifically passed to change that situation, and apply amendments 1-8 directly to the states.

 

[SixForSure]

The 2A says a well regulated malitia is necessary.
It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does NOT say the right of (only) the members of that malitia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The 2A says a well regulated malitia is necessary.
It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does NOT say the right of (only) the members of that malitia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the correct reading in my opinion as well. The part about the militia is not a restraint on the interpretation of the plainly worded "shall not be infringed" in reference to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Clearly the people and a well regulated militia are not the same things, though one is quite definitely drawn from the other (Just as a well is not the same as a bucket of water). Anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of the English language should be able to comprehend that plainly obvious fact.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Given its federal status, DC is ironically the only city in which local guns laws (based on powers delegated by Congress) are subject to the prohibition in the Second Amendment.

Excellent point, gc. So ironic, isn't it?

 

[woerm]

uh, Grizz

not quite:

quote
Many people mention US vs Miller as a precedent against the RKBA. If you read the full decision Miller was convicted of a NFA violation, possession of a sawed off shotgun and claimed the NFA was unconstitutional. In the decison the court noted that there was no military purpose for a sawed off shotgun so the NFA was constitutional. US vs Miller is more a reinforcement of the right of the people to own military style weapons.
unquote

Miller was not convicted of a thing,

a demurer, sustained at the district court was of the indictment, not a appeal of a conviction. the US attorney appealed to the supremes who expedited the appeal so the defense couldn't get to the hearing.
Miller's attorney asked for an extension to get there, it was denied. Then the US attorney lied to the supremes and said the NFA didn't cover milita weapons. go read the transcript it really illumenates how corrupt the supremes were/are. Ie there were at least two people on the court who should have known that shotguns were used by the US army.

the scumsucker McReynolds and a lying AUSA beside the lying Lockyer

Miller was not convicted of anything. The deumurer of the indictment was reversed and remanded.

Miller was dead before he could be tried.

Dimwit McReynolds used the 'no judical notice of military utility of shotguns' bs because he wanted to screw gun owners and ditch the second ammendent for FDR. FYI there were at least two CMH issued for use of shotguns in WWI and military shotguns go way back, even George Washington requested shotguns in his own procurement orders.

r

 

[hugh damright]

I don't seem to be accepting the notion that DC local laws are really federal laws. I think of federal laws as being laws passed by federal government.

I think that before a Territory became a State, it was bound by the USBOR, but I don't think that meant that every local law was really a federal law.

If the intent is to apply the USBOR to DC, I think it might make more sense to say that the USBOR applies to DC in the same way that the USBOR applied to the Territories before they became States and had their own sovereignty and their own BOR. Since DC is not sovereign, they remain like a Territory, with the USBOR applying to them.

 

[gc70]

I don't seem to be accepting the notion that DC local laws are really federal laws. I think of federal laws as being laws passed by federal government.

That is certainly an interesting technical point.

The Second Amendment applies to the national government and DC is an entity of the national government. The way I view it, any restraint on the national government cascades down to encompass any entity of the federal government.

An analogy might also help to clarify the distinction. Federal agencies are entities of the national government. Congress has delegated authority to write regulations to federal agencies. However, federal agency regulations can't go beyond the limits that Congress itself is bound by.

I do not know whether DC's local laws are technically federal laws, but they are created under authority delegated by Congress.

 

[Gifted]

I don't seem to be accepting the notion that DC local laws are really federal laws. I think of federal laws as being laws passed by federal government.

Congress passes laws for DC, so any law in DC is a federal law.

 

[Axman]

Whether or not Washington D.C. is bound by federal law or not is really a moot point. Citizens in the city of WDC are U.S. citizens and have every right in the BoR as all U.S. citizens. Is this not correct?.

 

[GRIZ22]

Woerm,

Yes you are right US vs Miller was an indictment not a conviction.

thttp://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Government/Courts/U.S.%20Supreme%20Court/Miller/US%20v.%20Miller%20Summaryhe issue

The issue was the military utility of a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18" not the military use of shotguns. It also mentions the militia being able to report with their own arms.

 

[hugh damright]

Whether or not Washington D.C. is bound by federal law or not is really a moot point. Citizens in the city of WDC are U.S. citizens and have every right in the BoR as all U.S. citizens. Is this not correct?

The USBOR was intended to limit the federal government. Parts of it have been applied against the States by the 14th "Amendment", but the Second Amendment has not been incorporated - the Second Amendment only limits the federal government.

If the US was a national government i.e. one big State/Nation/Country, then the USBOR would apply nationwide. But that is not our frame of government.

 

[One of Many]

Correct me if I am wrong. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not have senators or representaives that can vote in the federal legislature. The laws that pertain to the District of Columbia are created or confirmed in the federal legislature; it has only been a couple of decades since the District of Columbia was allowed by the federal legislature to have a city council and mayor, with permission to make ordinances for daily operation of the District of Columbia.

If all that I have stated is correct, then the District of Columbia is controlled entirely by the federal government, and any restriction placed upon the relationship between the federal government and the states by the US constitution applies to the District of Columbia as it would to any State in the Union of States (but the District of Columbia does not have the powers that States are granted). As occupants of a federal reserve, any restrictions applicable to the federal government relating to individual rights would apply, regardless of the District of Columbia not being a State.

The federal legislature should have been called on this unconstitutional gun ban as soon as the D.C. city council passed it. The federal legislature failed in it's duty to uphold the US Constitution, and the people of the nation failed in their duty to make sure the members of their elected federal legislature kept their oaths to uphold the US Constitution.

It is not surprising that crooks running the show declare the 2nd Amendment to be meaningless; they do that with many other constitutional provisions all of the time, and We the People, let them get away with it, to our shame.

 

[Hypnogator]

The SCOTUS will never, I repeat never take any case that has any significant bearing on the 2nd Amendment.

They may be dragged to it kicking and screaming. IIRC, when two Federal appellate courts issue conflicting rulings, the SC must rule on the case.

If the court rules against DC, accepting the individual rights argument, that will bring it into direct conflict with the 9th Circuit, which has adopted the collective argument. The Supremes won't be able to dodge that one!

I'm actually encouraged that Judge Siverman seems inclined to accept the individual argument, pointing out that the collective theory is a concoction of 20th Century gun-grabbers.