Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Equal rights under the Second Amendment
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


On March 9, a good thing happened for people living in the central and inner cities of America: the DC gun ban was declared unconstitutional. The blanket ban on all operational firearms - and every handgun even if that gun doesn't work - was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. As a guy who lived in the projects, served as mayor of Cincinnati, and who serves as a member of the National Rifle Association's urban affairs committee, I say, "Three cheers for justice."

Many cities have bad gun laws, and the worst is the DC gun ban. Under the ban, you cannot have any handgun, even in your own home. What's worse, you can't even have a shotgun or rifle, unless it's locked away (unloaded) or disabled with something like a trigger lock. The end result is the same; you cannot have a functional firearm handy in your house. If something happens in the darkness of night, you cannot have a usable firearm to defend your house, your children, or even your own life. That's the outrage of laws like the DC gun ban.

Gun control laws hurt law-abiding people because they're the only ones who obey those laws. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. When you pass broad gun control laws criminals still get guns. What's worse, when you ban guns, the criminals know their intended victims are almost certainly unable to fight back.

And, what types of citizens are disadvantaged the most by these laws: low income families and poor people living in our inner cities. Many of my fellow African-Americans, Latinos, and other racial minorities are burdened under such laws. If some thug tries to pull a gun or bust through a door, there's little decent people can do to protect themselves.

Every man has the right, and the duty, to put his life on the line to defend his wife or mother or child. A single mother of any race shouldn't have to worry about protecting her little girl. A grandfather, regardless of where he lives, shouldn't fear for his grandson's safety when they go to bed. Women, the elderly and the disabled are the ones left most vulnerable by gun control laws. The inner city is full of them.

Gun control laws like the DC gun ban leave these good people defenseless.

That is not what the Founders intended. They put into the Bill of Rights an express provision to protect people: the Second Amendment. Declaring that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the Second Amendment gives every American the right to defend their life, liberty and property against anyone who tries to take it away. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy to protect freedom for every citizen. That includes Americans living in DC.

The framers of the Constitution understood that an armed society is a safe society. They understood that everyone is safer when criminals do not know who is armed, that foreign nations don't relish the thought of attacking an armed people, and that no government wants to oppress a citizenry that has the power to resist.

At long last, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has validated that view. The DC Circuit held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right for private citizens to keep and bear arms, and invalidated the DC gun ban as unconstitutional. In doing so, they affirmed that owning a gun is a civil right of all law-abiding citizens.

The implications of this case are enormous as the city government decides how to proceed. Eventually, this matter may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Constitutional lawyers explain that if this case is affirmed, it would lay the foundation for changing gun control laws all over the country. At the same time, if the appeals court decision is reversed, the impact could be enormous, as it could begin to erode support for the idea that owning firearms is a basic right.

Every American should care about this case, and every American should hope the Supreme Court clearly reaffirms this fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

But, those who should want this most are people who grew up like me: blacks from the inner city, living in the projects. Good and decent people. They deserve to be safe too. They deserve security in their homes also. They are Americans, and the courts should respect their dignity and vindicate their rights.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Arms
patriot it seems to me you are at odds with yourself,but alittle. When you are 100% sure on what "arms" we can own let me know. I can't wait to get my LAW and my M79 purely for defensive porposes only. You believe me don't you

dirtroadscholar
"I certainly never assumed that anyone here, so far, was a pacifist by any means, though I could wish for a couple of them to exceed to confines of an amen corner, while providing for some entertainment."

Some preach to the choir, some sit in the Amen corner and some dance to the beat of a different drum.

The recent SCOTUS ruling on Massachusetts v. EPA is enough reason to cause concern, even for an optimist, regarding Parker, which will most likely be decided long before the 08 elections. I haven't looked over the PDF in any detail.

http://www.junkscience.com/MassvEPA.pdf


dirtroadscholar
Actually, I say "almost" not out of optimism (although I am an admitted optimist) but out of realism. There is a small percentage of people, world wide that think self-defense is wrong. How small? I have no idea. It's got to be an even smaller amount of Americans, thank God, but even some of them think "self-defense" means calling 911. Not only in England but in many US States too. Texas just recently passed a law that removed the need for retreat before deadly force could be used, many states still require retreat. I don't think the trend, in America, is going the way of the socialists.

Our rights are not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, it's a limitation of government and I don't think the odds are against a positive ruling for Parker. While there are pacifists that don't believe in self-defense, I assure you, I'm not one of them.


"Si vis pacem, para bellum. (If you want peace, prepare for war.)" -- Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (Epitoma rei militaris 390 AD)


Pulling the pin...
After more searching it seems that most of those that think grenades would be excluded as arms cite Halbrook as a reference. Unfortunately, I find nothing but opinion that claim they definately are included as arms.

Kopel cites a flaw in the "Halbrook test" yet says later that a modern interpretation of the "civilized-warfare test" might use the police as the standard, which, of course, would then exclude grenades, again.

I was in the Army, I've thrown live fragmentation grenades. I have a hard time believing they'd fall into the definition of arms, as used in the 2nd. Light and heavy machine guns, yes, but not grenades, mines and other explosive ordnance.

True story regarding grenades:
When I was in basic training, we had to train with and throw grenades. When we were all lining up to throw live grenades the drill instructor gave us this warning. "If one of you sorry SOBs drops throws the pin and drops that live grenade, I'll swear to God you saved my life. How those footprints got on your back, I'll never say." We all lived. :D



re: Patriot
Excellent finds! Thanks for the info!

dirtroadscholar
"We don't need no Second Amendment."

Whether or not we *need* it is debatable, given the number of victim-less gun laws and prosecutions. Regardless, we *have* it, now we are debating the interpretation and definitions. Almost everyone believes in the right to self-defense.


GRENADE!!!!!
http://www.outdoorsbest.com/kates061404/

"LIMITS ON THE AMENDMENT
The Amendment covers only small arms. Neither RPGs, cannons, grenades nor the other super-destructive devices of modern war are covered."


Kopel doesn't seem to agree...
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2001/Right-to-Bear-Some-Arms.htm

"A reader asks: "I have a question about your recent NRO article, "Guns in Court." You state that the Second Amendment only protects the right of individuals to own weapons that can be used in a militia. Does the law specify which weapons can be used in a militia? Can a militia use assault rifles or hand grenades? May individual citizens own every type of weapon currently in use by the National Guard?"

Here's the answer:

The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context), but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their indictment.

A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court — goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons, but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981) (billy clubs).

With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns (so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a constitutional right to own machine guns.

Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).)

But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech.

Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.)

The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).)

But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers one potential line of argument.

Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g., suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties. Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core. Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are becoming common in special attack units.

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government."


I'm not sure we'll know, for sure, until after Parker, when somebody tries get them.

Liberty First
"Part of the difficulty is that little of the common-law was ever really codified or written down."

I just don't believe that grenades and other explosives are "arms," I'm sure that I've read something somewhere that backs my opinion up, but, I admit, I haven't looked lately.

Since you have found "something somewhere" You're one up on me but I'm still not convinced. I'm still convinced that explosive munitions are not considered arms.

Miller ruled that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't "arms" as defined in the second but I believe it's closer than a grenade, RPG or a claymore would be.

Certainly all bladed weapons, including bayonets, would be allowed.

I guess, to be sure, we'd have to find out what was has been argued, in courts, about civilians possessing grenades.

re: Patriot
Patriot wrote:

"... I believe grenades, mines, missles, rockets and other explosives would be ordnance, not included as arms."

=====

I certainly tend to agree with you. However...

". . . a common- law definition would be 'light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare.' . . ."

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm #4

Thus, any light infantry weaponry, including grenades, grenade launchers, claymore mines, and etcetera fall into the category of "arms" based upon the provided, common-law definition.

Of course, according to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/705263/posts , "III. What 'arms' meant, circa 1787", Black's Law Dictionary defined "arms" as, "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." In this case grenade launchers, RPG's, and the like are provided for, but grenades and mines are not.


Part of the difficulty is that little of the common-law was ever really codified or written down.

What is certain, and common to every description of the term "arms" (circa 1787), is that "arms" did not (and, therefore *does* not) include crew-served weapons, artillery, weapon installations, and fighting vehicles and aircraft.

Of course, most every definition (circa 1787) also tends to include sabers, swords, hatchets, knives, and the like. ("anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon" and "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman")

Seven Myths of Gun Control
No. Myth The Truth
1. Guns increase violent crime. Both Australia and England have already banned guns, but violent crime is not down in either country. In Australia violent crime is up in every category. Murders were up 6.5%, and attempted murders rose by 12.5%. Australia is ranked No. 1 on the list of most violent countries, while the United States did not even make the top 10 (Lovelace, 2001, p. 14).
2. Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal. By and large, criminals are cowards. They prey on women and old people because they want to avoid a fair fight at all costs. Statistics show that in 98 percent of reported cases where a potential crime victim brandished a firearm, the criminals fled the moment they realized their intended victim was armed (Lovelace, 2001, p. 14).
3. Guns pose a special threat to children. The statistics accumulated in support of this myth are hardly believable when you peel back the onion and look inside the numbers. First, a very broad child definition is used, to include people up to 20 years of age. Also, included in the statistics, and counted as children, are the astronomical death toll numbers for African-American and Hispanic street gang members involved in drug trafficking and turf warfare. Actual statistics show more children die each year from automobile accidents, drowning, fires and bicycle accidents than from guns (Lovelace, 2001, p. 14).
4. The Second Amendment applies only to militiamen. In U.S. v. Emerson, October 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Fifth Circuit Senior Judge, William L. Garwood, devoted much of the decision towards Second Amendment issues. He found entirely in favor of the Second Amendment’s conventional, individual rights interpretation (National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, 2001, December 11).
5. The Frontiersmen needed guns, we don't. An unarmed populace has been the dream of every tyrannical government since recorded time. Not only do Americans need guns to protect themselves from criminals, but also from an attack by their own government. Deterrence has worked for 55 years in preventing a horrifying nuclear war. Because we as a nation prepared for nuclear war, we enjoyed nuclear peace. So it is also true that an armed citizenry has proven a deterrent to tyrants. Our readiness to defend our rights has provided the best insurance that such a fight will never be necessary. The threat of a government becoming hostile towards its citizenry is not merely a theoretical possibility. It is estimated that in the 20th Century alone, some 50 million people were killed at the hands of their own government (Lovelace, 2001, p. 14).
6. We should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users. Unfortunately licensing cars has not stopped accidents on the highways. Nor will licensing guns stop gun crimes. Only when gun-toting criminals obey the laws, will licensing work in preventing violent crimes. Advocates for licensing know the real reason is so police can have a record of every legally owned gun in America (Lovelace, 2001, p. 14).
7. Reasonable gun-control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners.
At times it may seem gun-owners are being unreasonable in their quest for fewer controls. But the point is not about a tactical restriction today as it is about loss of rights tomorrow. Many see licensing as merely a natural progression towards confiscation. Once licensing, registration, and background checks are accepted as normal, Americans will be powerless to prevent the next logical step. If a major component of the Bill of Rights can be discarded, might it be logical to assume another right, under different circumstances, might also be deleted? Might freedom of speech, or the press, or assembly be next? (Lovelace, 2001, p. 14)

Lovelace, J. C. (2001). Gun control vs. American freedom [Review of the book The seven myths of gun control: Reclaiming the truth about guns, crime, and the Second Amendment]. Human Events, 57(42), 14-16.


Liberty First
I believe grenades, mines, missles, rockets and other explosives would be ordnance, not included as arms.

re: inkling_revival & bunk
Um... no. I know no such thing because it is *not* bunk. There was, in fact, a distinction in classes of weapons between "arms" and other weapons. I suggest you do some actual research into the *history* of the terminology.

Here:
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

See #4:
When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.


Thus, by that, I must concede to such weapons as RPG's... but stand by my conclusions regarding crew-served weapons and artillery.

Also See:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ri/right_to_bear_arms.htm
http://www.guncite.com/journals/kdialog.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/705263/posts
"III. What "arms" meant, circa 1787

"First, a few modern definitions of 'arms' present themselves. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as 'a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.' Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as 'anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.' "

inkling_revival
"Bunk. And you know it."

From my understanding, he's correct. Arms would be handguns, shotguns and rifles. Including automatics, .50 cal, machine pistols, SMGs, HMGs, etc but nothing that explodes. We the people were to keep the type of arms but not the artillary.

It Always Amazes

me that the most vocal First Amendment supporters are usually the most vocal Second Amendment denigraters, fer example:

Christian Trejbal, OpEd writer for the Roanoke Times, Roanoke VA christian.trejbal@roanoke.com

He still has not apologized for comparing CC gun owners to sexual criminals, implying that both are worthy of being put on public lists, with addresses and directions to their houses.

Patriot x 2?
Evidently there's no control for unique nicknames. That is unfortunate but it's not surprising that more than one person would select it. Confusing, yes.

Lydia
I can't help it if you don't like Thomas Jefferson's reasoning. It is what it is.

Liberty First
Bunk. And you know it.

re: inkling_revival & Rocket Propelled G
Please sir, note the language of the Second Amendment. It says that the Right to "keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It does *NOT* say, "Weapons" or "Munitions" or "Artillery".

In the lexicon of the time, arms referred to individual weapons. There was a distinction between "arms" and "artillery". Mortars and cannon and other crew-served weapons were considered "artillery" *not* "arms".

Todays language equivalent for "arms" would be "guns" (for you civilians) or "small arms" (for you veterans and soldiers). Thus, in the purest interpretation of the Second Amendment, we have the Right to keep and bear handguns, shotguns, carbines, and rifles, including, but not limited to, individual machine guns. It does *NOT*, however, protect the Right to own crew-served machine guns (eg: mounted .50cal, 30mm Vulcan, CIWS, etcetera). rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, howitzers, tanks, bombs, missiles, fixed- or rotary- wing aircraft, ICBM's, and etcetera.

Patriot x 2?
I couldn't help but notice, in this stream of comments, several posts by someone called Patriot.

For the record, I am not the author of the previous posts about this article, and my statement is not to be interpreted as my concurrence or nonconcurrence with the previous posts by "Patriot."

I've been using the Townhall nickname of Patriot for a while now, so the fact that someone else is able to use the same posting nickname is a rather serious and confusing technical glitch.

Lydia
"Oh good grief...
people are basically telling me citizens should be allowed to have nukes!"

Ummm, no. Nuclear weapons wouldn't be considered "arms" in the context of the second amendment. An M16, maybe, but grenades, claymores, rocket launchers and nukes would still be off the table.

Lydia
And Utopia will ensue....

The world would be a much safer place if I could set off a nuke from this keyboard, of that I am sure.

re: Vic
Vic wrote:

"To all of you folks that keep posting that the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution have allways applied to the States are in error. Some States actually had State Sponsored Churches up to the middle 1800s (MA)..."

======

Actually Vic, except where the language specifically restricts the scope of the Amendment to the Federal government *ALL* Amendments apply to the States.

Please review the Constitution. Specifically Article VI (the "Supremacy Clause") and Article V (the Amendment process).

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article VI, the second clause, also known as the "Supremacy Clause", states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In other words, the States are bound by the Constitution where it is not expressly limited to the Federal government.


Also, Article V, states (in part):
"... Amendments ... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified..."

In other words, once properly ratified, Amendments become part of the Constitution which means that they are part of the Supreme Law of the Land to which the States are bound.


The language of the Second Amendment does not expressly limit it's scope to the Federal government. It does *NOT* say, "Congress shall make no law", nor does it say, "Congress shall not infringe." It says, simply, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus, per Article V, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Thus, per Article VI, the second clause, the Second Amendment is part of the Supreme Law of the Land and the States are bound to it.


RE: STATE CHURCHES

The difference is that the First Amendment, unlike the other 9 of the Bill of Rights, starts with the limiting language, "Congress shall make no law..." The language limited the scope of the First Amendment to the Federal Government, specifically Congress. Thus, it did *NOT* apply to the States.



Erroneous judicial findings notwithstanding, the language of Article V and Article VI is clear. Amendments are *part of* the Constitution and the Constitution *is* the Supreme Law of the Land and binding upon the States. The unconditional language of Amendments 2 - 10 is *EQUALLY* clear. They do *not* restrict the scope of protection of our Rights to the Federal Government. They are blanket, unconditional, unqualified guarantees.

No matter how many mathemeticians declare that a square is a triangle, it does not make it so. No matter how many judges have, in the past, ignored the language of Articles V and VI to declare that the Bill of Rights *only* restricts the Federal Government, it does not make it so.

My take is
What does the Qu'Ran say about gun ownership?

Souter has stated a desire to use "international laws" in settling cases in the Supreme Court of the US...

A German judge ruled last week that a Muslim husband can walk free of charges he beat his wife because the Qu'Ran allows it...

Shouldn't Souter now use the German case as precedent to invoke Sharia Law here?

I'm pretty sure the religion of peace calls for private ownership of firearms, AK's, anti-tank missiles, stingers, etc... how else would they carry out jihad?

So using this logic, Souter should side with the NRA on this one. No?

Liberty, 8:52 Pm
Giving in to yet another attempt by an intellectually dishonest Leftist to "win" a debate by changing the subject...

Remind us again which liberties were abridged by the Patriot Act? Please do be specific, with concrete examples...

Lydia, 8:09 AM
Lydia writes:
"I am quite sure,
almost to the point of absolute certainty beyond any measure of doubt, that the founding fathers did NOT have rocket propelled grenades in mind when they framed the second amendment."

Except for the obvious point that rocket-propelled grenades did not exist when the Constitution was written, you'd be wrong.

Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his defense of the concept behind the 2nd Amendment; the purpose was so the citizenry could never lose its liberties to a coercive GOVERNMENT. Jefferson, Madison, and the rest insisted on a citizenry armed sufficiently to TAKE ON THE GOVERNMENT. Since the government today has tanks, armor troop carriers, missiles, etc., the correct application of the 2nd amendment requires -- REQUIRES, Lydia -- that citizens be permitted to arm themselves with rocket-propelled grenades, and much more.


jerubaal, 4:00 AM
Sorry, pal, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

In the wake of the Civil War, the SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment "due process" clause meant that the states could not pass any laws that abridge rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution. This was how they managed to maintain that a national slavery ban is Constitutionally sound.

So, since shortly after the Civil War, the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states.

Now, we may fairly debate the question of whether the SCOTUS was right in this ruling; I personally don't think it was. But it's not going to be reversed. It's fact. Learn it.

Mike
"...why anyone with any self respect, respect for the Constitution, or regard for our inalienable right to self defense, would abide by the DC gun ban..."

Why? Fear of prosecution. First they register, then they know where to confiscate. It worked in Germany.

Fortunately, there are a LOT of firearms, under virtual or literal floorboards that are there, just in case. This Parker v. DC case could change a lot things, for a lot of states, as precedence. They might even have to appeal the ban on automatics, based on Miller and Parker, assuming Parker goes as expected.


Mike
Well said.

In addition to the 2nd amendment, I also wonder why so many have apparently gone along with the unconstitutional provisions in the Patriot Acts and the Military Commission Act. We used to know that it was ill advised to put such power in the hands of government and just trust that they won't abuse it. Even though these pieces of legislation authorized said abuse. Seems like these days we have thrown common sense to the wind and are willing to sacrifice our Constitutional rights as long as we are promised "safety".

Sheeple is the correct word.

"We The Sheeple"

What I find difficult to understand is why anyone with any self respect, respect for the Constitution, or regard for our inalienable right to self defense, would abide by the DC gun ban, or voluntarily turn in their guns as was done in the UK. Would someone please explain this to me. What ever became of Mass Civil Disobedience when citizens are oppressed by Unconstitutional Laws? We have obviously turned into SHEEPLE. I’ve lived in both DC and London where hand guns were banned. Yet despite the law, I refused to turn in my guns, and in fact “illegally” carried my Glock .45 in both cities, when ever I left my house. Now I’m a resident of “The Peoples Republik of California” and still carry my Glock. No. I don’t have a CCW permit. My attitude is” SCREW THE LAW”. There’s an old saying: “Better to be tried by 12 than buried by 6”.

colorfulbeach
Actually, I think I understand your post, and in a sense you're on the money.

The 2nd is the right that ensures the power of the People (Constitutional sense) to secure all the rest.

If so, well done.


Loony bin...
"They're coming to take me away, ah-ha!" ;)


colorfulbeachpersonality:
The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of our rights, they are all limitations on government.

For Me
The bill of rights was always nine "rights" 1st and 3rd thru 10th amendments, and ONE Guarantee that the other nine would never be taken away, and that, of course, is the 2nd. It is important to recognize, at a time when We need it most, the "individual rights" aspect of the 2nd amendment, so obviously clear to any rational reader, has been heard and clarified, for the very first time.

CBP

...the will of the masses is divided by far-reaching distortions and the mass mind is corrupted by a knowledge worse than ignorance because it is false.
Ely Culbertson

Patriot
:)


At the least!

Consigned to a loony bin will do, too.

BrianR
"But don't ever tease me like that again!"

At her age, I might have only been predicting. Not that I "wish her dead," I don't, I'd settle for retired. :P

Patriot: LOL
Well, there wasn't all that much difference. An understandable mistake.



But don't ever tease me like that again!


oops...
I thought the first one didn't go through.

BrianR
I don't know why I confused O'Connor with Ginsburg, but I did. *shrug*

BrianR
I was thinking O'Connor but wrote Ginsburg, I don't know why I mixed the two up. *shrug*

Patriot
Ginsburg's gone? Since when? Is this something new?

I'm asking seriously; that wasn't facetious.

MStone
I'd fully expect Ginsberg or Souter to sign on.

Ginsburg is gone.

They'll hear it no matter how the Full Court of Appeals rules. Either Parker or DC will take it to the SCOTUS, imho.

SCOTUS
Will the Supreme Court hear it? Possibly. I forget how many justices have to agree to issue a writ of certiorari. If it only takes one or two (I think it only takes one, but I may be wrong), I'd fully expect Ginsberg or Souter to sign on.

If they do hear the case, it's a coin toss as to which way the vote will go. It's almost certain to be a 5-4 decision, but who can tell which way the middle of the court would go?

2nd amendment
the second amendment is the most important of all the bill of rights as it gives us the genral population a way to resist if the government tries to become to powerful,why should the government be afraid of a free armed populace,there is no reason to unless you are up to something

A moment of amusement
Goes back a long way prior to 61.
The firearms confiscated from the French were packed in nail kegs and sold mail order by the keg.
Many gunsmiths purchased one or more kegs and sorted out functional pistols and anything valuable worth repair.
Student gunsmiths needing experience at the time went around buying anything we could make useful.
Now for the punch line;
Nothing was left in those kegs but broken JUNK!
Gunsmiths would give each customer one to take to the "Gun Turn In Program" to help defray the cost of their new gun.

Parker v. District of Columbia
SaveTheGuns.com writes:
The SCOTUS won't touch it!

IMHO, not only will they hear it, they'll fast track it. The only thing that could stop it now is if DC gives up and removes the ban and they wont.

The reason I believe this is so is because the ban is still in place, pending appeal. The SCOTUS will fast track this case because of it's potential Constitutionality.

The question is, has the recent shift in the SCOTUS been enough of a shift to produce the proper ruling? The SCOTUS failed with both the Raich and Kilo decisions, IMHO.

To all of you folks that keep
posting that the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution have allways applied to the States are in error. Some States actually had State Sponsored Churches up to the middle 1800s (MA). This interpretation was done by the Supreme Court in the case Barron v. Baltimore (1833). In 1925 with Gitlo v. New York, the Supremes reversed themselves (where is the swimmer’s Stare Decisis) and applied the 14th amendment and the use of the term "liberty" to include the 1st amendment right of freedom of speech. Over the years the Supremes have gradually ruled on all BUT the 2nd amendment and part of the 5th (the part that establishes grand juries).

The infamous “Gitlo” decision was the opening round in what wound up being Roe v. Wade.

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243a.htm

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/gitlow.html

The Don
Very cool.

It's also interesting to note...
...that the Bill of Rights wasn't even introduced into the House of Representatives by James Madison until June 8, 1789.

At the time of the introduction of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. House, eleven (11) of the thirteen states had already ratified the Constitution.

North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified AFTER the Bill of Rights was introduced. Furthermore, Congress did not approve of the first twelve amendments until September 25, 1789, which was about a month before North Carolina ratified.

Just to be accurate...

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Darren
You wrote:

"Killer
The constitution was ratified in 1787."

That is only partly correct. Delaware was indeed the first State to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787, but the last State to ratify was Rhode Island and that was not until May 29, 1790. Most of the States actually ratified within the year 1788.

If we're to properly inform "Killer", we must be extremely factually accurate and hit inside the X-ring...

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com


jerubaal
Of course the Second Amendment applies to the states. The whole point of the 9th and 10th amendments was that 2-8 do, in fact, apply to the states. They place limits on what the states may do. These limits, by an originalist reading, are pretty limited themselves -- but the addition of 9 and 10 make very clear the intention of the Constitution to govern the states' latitude in these few areas.

(Arguably the states are required to observe the underlying civil rights affirmed by the First Amendment too, even though 1A refers specifically to limits on Congress -- that IT should make no law abridging the specified freedoms. Jurisprudence has evolved in that regard over the past 218 years, with the states now routinely held to be constrained not to abridge 1A rights that Congress cannot abridge.)

The wording of the Second Amendment is key. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It doesn't specify what entity(ies) shall not infringe it, but that the right shall not be infringed, period. As with other Constitutional rights -- against unreasonable search and seizure, against self-incrimination at trial, against cruel and unusual punishment -- the states do not have the authority to stray from observing the 2A right.

The federal judiciary has on occasion interpreted state gun laws as being in comformity with 2A, by saying, for example, that restricting legal gun sales to registered dealers, and requiring background checks and waiting periods, do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

But the point is always whether local gun laws conform with the Constitution -- never that the states are not bound by its provisions. The states don't have the authority to violate the Bill of Rights.

George, interesting side note
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to secure for freed slaves the right to...

Wait for it!...

Own guns!


tadpole
Your suggestion that race has nothing to do with the arguement is wrong.
What do you think was behind the so-called "Saturday Night Special" brouhaha??
Cheap handguns that weren't capable of firing 10,000 rounds without failing (an exaggeration) or couldn't be dropped without busting??
Nonsense. No bad guy will look at the bore of a handgun pointed at him and say, "Ha, cheap handgun!! Prepare to die, sucker!!!"
Lawful residents of the hood and the barrio deserve self-protection was much as those who can plunk down $600 for a .44 Mag revolver.

The Don
No, unfortunately a District or Circuit Court ruling is only applicable within that particular district or Circuit.

However, it can be cited as precedent for consideration in cases in other districts; but again, it's not binding.

BTW
That little stroll down Memory Lane puts in my mind how things have changed.

That P-38 I mentioned? I bought that at a Sears store in San Francisco in 1970, right over the counter, no waiting period, no Fed paperwork.

Think that could happen now?

Sounds almost like sci-fi, doesn't it?


Gunny. Yeah
I remember back in the early 70s I had to live in Chicago for a while for business reasons, about a year and a half.

Owning a handgun was either very restricted, or had to be registered or something.

Whichever it was, I guess I was a criminal, because the whole time I was there I had a loaded Walther P-38 in my bureau drawer that I'd bought in Cali, and took back to Cali with me when I left Chitown.

Screw 'em if they can't take a joke.


Sen Webb
I should say that I'm surprised that politicians can carry a weapon into DC, a TOTAL GUN BAN, but the rest of us can't. So typical of the idiots within the beltway.

I'll go to jail before I give my shooting irons up. Let the gov't SUPPORT ME for awhile!

Killer
Born stupid or did you work real hard to get where you're at on the dumbazz meter?

Killer; A few facts
Jefferson was born in 1743, which makes him 33 in 1776, not 21.

Further, he drafted the Declaration of Independance, which pre-dates the Constitution, so though he wasn't involved in framing the Constitution, he was certainly old enough and experienced enough to have done so.


Killer
The constitution was ratified in 1787.

To the people afraid of evil guns...

...Honi soit qui mal y pense!

Shame upon him who thinks evil of it!

(Motto of the Order of the Garter)

gun control
i am a gun owner and i take all saftey asspects of my guns i hunt target pratices etc.
these so caled anti gun nuts probly never held let along shot a gun.i say put them all in a city with a no gun policy and lets see what the crime rate would be they would be askin for protectionfrom us law abiding gun owners.

re: jerubaal
jerubaal wrote:

"... The second amendment doesn't apply to the states. They can take away everything including safety scissors if they want as long as they have a rational reason for it..."

=====

The 14th Amendment notwithstanding, please review the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article VI, the second clause, also known as the "Supremacy Clause", states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In other words, the States are bound by the Constitution where it is not expressly limited to the Federal government.


Also, Article V, states (in part):
"... Amendments ... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified..."

In other words, once properly ratified, Amendments become part of the Constitution which means that they are part of the Supreme Law of the Land to which the States are bound.


The language of the Second Amendment does not expressly limit it's scope to the Federal government. It does *NOT* say, "Congress shall make no law", nor does it say, "Congress shall not infringe." It says, simply, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus, per Article V, the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Thus, per Article VI, the second clause, the Second Amendment is part of the Supreme Law of the Land and the States are bound to it.

Good times
I went to the range yesterday to sight in my new .22 and I'm still smiling. Is there anything more fun than plincking with a .22?

The best way to convert a lib is to take them shooting. When they realize using a firearm doesn't make you a criminal or a nut and is actually fun you can practically see the lightbulb turn on.


Jerubaal: sorry, you're wrong
I understand your statement is made in the light of Federalism, but states' rights do not supercede the Bill of Rights; those are absolute.

The states can't individually curtail free speech, freedom of assembly, the Fifth amendment, or any other of the first ten amendments.

Thomas Jefferson...
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823


"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

Enough said...

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

About time, too.
About time, too.

Visit: http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

No Thomas Jefferson was not
a writer of the US Constitution, but he was one of the three writers of the Virginia Constition, which was used as a model for the US Constitution.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va05.htm

Justpaul
While Jefferson was not at the C.C. He did provide guidance to Mr. Madison and others through books loaned and letters etc. From what I've read he didn't like the Constitution at frist but warmed to it after going over a couple of times and once the Bill of Rights was proposed he was behind it completely. While he didn't write it his thoughtsbelieves were still a small part of it's framing.

I can only say
I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. I don't recognize anyone's opinion, law or BS when it comes to protecting my own life and my family.

Funny how easily the same people who want to take our rights away from us have absolutely no problem sending us in harms way to protect their lame azzes. Additionally, I also don't buy into the fact that politicians' lifes are more important than the average Joe, au contraire.

Fundamental rights
Cannot be 'taken away' by any government entity. They can only be relinquished by 'we the people.' Government can only demand that we relinquish them. And I'm fairly certain that 99% of the posters here on TH aren't the type of people to relinquish the ability to protect hearth, home, and health just cuz guvmint says so!

HEAD OUT OF SAND, LIBS!!
Where are usual imbeciles - liberalBADman et al,
---> not shouting "pro-death", antigun idiocies????
Everybody can criticize, but liberals never have the answer to this:
....what o you do when a criminal with a gun gets into your house.....
TELL US!!!

Ya know, if it don't go to the "SCOTUS"
That would be good for the folks in D.C., because that would mean the Appeals Court's rulling would stand, and all people, whether hoity toity Senators, or unwashed Janitors could protect themselves from the scum and villainy that currently stalk the streets of our nation's capitol.

It wouldn't automatically invalidate draconian anti-firearms laws in other cities, but it would definately be precedent setting, and loosen the grip that the leftwing nazis have on law abiding citizens' rights to defend themselves!

RE: killer
Jefferson wasn't one of the authors of the Constitution. He was in France during its writing.

But, yes, the "Bill of Rights" was added to the Constitution to appease the anti-federalists who were opposing the Constitution's signature. That is nothing new.

RE: SaveTheGuns.com
"The SCOTUS will not hear it."

I wouldn't bet on it. There is now a conflict -- on the one hand, some court decisions seem to uphold the DC gun ban, on the other this one contradicts that. It is the job of SCOTUS to resolve these sort of conflicts. If they don't hear it, then they are not doing their job.

Bill of rights
I always have to laugh out loud at the "founding Fathers could never imagine machine guns" argument. Using that logic, then only speech presented in documents made by movable type presses is protected. The Founding Fathers sure could never have dreamed of TV, Radio and the internet. I have yet to have a liberal not back down when it is put that way. On the federal VS the State I think the 10th Amendment speaks to that. Too bad that very important Amendment is seldom if ever remembered these days.

RE: jerubaal
"The second amendment doesn't apply to the states."

The 14th Amendment says it does.

Jefferson?
Why do we always hear that Thomas Jefferson had so much to do with the Constitution (or anything at all to do with it, for that matter)?

Jefferson was in Paris during the Constitutional Convention. He did not write the Constitution. He did not sign the Constitution. He did not debate the Constitution. His thoughts on it are no more relevant than mine or enyone elses. Madison was the primary author.

I do wonder about Jeruubal's claim that the Second Amendment does not stop the states from banning guns, however. The language of the Amendment says otherwise, as it says the right shall not be infringed, with no modifier as to who cannot infringe upon it. That would appear to make the ban on infringement universal.


Killer??
Dude, get a grip - your tinfoil is on too tight. A Subject?? I don't think so. I don't care if the Bill of Rights was put there by James Madison, Dolly Madison or Carrot Top - it says what it says. If you want to see no protection from the government go outside this nations' borders. Go see for yourself, and then when you come back (if you do) tell me how we are subjects. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

And relative to the states vs. the federal laws taking precedence: The US had a little "spat" over that question in 1861 thru 1865. The decision was that the federal laws take precedence.

anti-socialist
Agreed, but the people on the field at Waco are still employed by our government under the Republicans.

SaveTheGuns
Sir, if you don't own a full auto M-16 or AK, M-60 etc, then you live in the wrong State.

Take a vacation to Las Vegas or Phoenix, visit a local range and rent one.

It has nothing to do with race
As it relates to gun ownership I find that I am in complete agreement with Mr. Blackwell.

What I am completely baffled by is why he would introduce race into the conversation. Inner city is not about color, it's about socio-economic capability. The right to protect oneself is not about color, it's a fundamental human right.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, Mr. Blackwell, I strongly urge you to leave your Jesse Jackson techniques in the bottom of your closet.

That being said he does redeem himself somewhat at the end of the article, but to discuss race as a reason to be happy about this decision is ridiculous.

The Beltway's Best
Jack Anderson, I bet, is rolling over in his grave. He wrote: "Inside the NRA, Armed and Dangerous" and vehemently believed the 2nd was a collective right. As the saying goes: "When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns." Good for the court!

Fundamental right
Marc of CA writes: "And that is why we should have firearms to match the military arms of the period in the D.C.."

Considering the murders of children, women & men in Waco by the party comprised of Marxists & Nazis, we should have weapons greater than those fascists pigs calling themselves Democrats.

Rational Limitations of the BOR
Sure, ritual Satanic sacrifice of a human or animal shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment. Having one's own Harrier Jet parked in the back yard complete with bunker busters and a .50 caliber mini-gun is not reasonable either.

But that being said, fully automatic machine guns should still be available after a reasonable process of background checks and other requirements.

Even in Switzerland where private machine gun possession is mandated, there are still regulations and strict controls on what can be done with them.

The NRA is not attempting to eradicate current Class III regulations for fully automatic firearms, but post 1986 manufactured full autos should still be available to Class III license holders.

Prohibiting modern machine gun ownership and relegating Class III enthusiasts to World War II firearms is clearly unconstitutional.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

To Lydia
No they did not have RPGs in mind, but they had the equivalent weapons of the day in mind..canon. They intended that citizens would be able to own every weapon that was in the Government inventory at the time and in 1789, citizens did own EVERY weapon then in the government inventory. The equivalent today would be that average citizens would be able to own nukes. Sound stupid, probebaly, but if you don't like it change the constitution through the legal means and not througth the courts.

The SCOTUS won't touch it!
Here we go again.

The SCOTUS will not hear it. I would be shocked completely out of my seat if it gets successfully appealed to the SCOTUS and it gets reversed. It simply won't happen.

The SCOTUS has never ruled that the Second Amendment's mention of the words "the people" means anything but the general population of the United States.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that Parker case goes to the SCOTUS, it will not be ruled that the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights refers to a state's power to raise a militia.

The mere idea that the SCOTUS will unhold the D.C. City Council's pathetic attempt to change U.S. history, is patently absurd.

The Founding Fathers wrote and spoke often about the right to keep and bear private arms. After all, it was EXACTLY what sparked the American Revolutionary War in the first place on April 19, 1775.

The SCOTUS cannot and will not ignore the Founding Fathers writings, speeches and opinions on this matter.

The Bill of Rights must stand and if it doesn't, the face of freedom, liberty and justice itself will be permanenty changed.

If the SCOTUS hears the case and upholds the D.C. Circuit's decision 5-4 which is more likely if it gets heard, then each and every law regulating possession and carry of firearms can be held up to the confirmed meaning of the Second Amendment. Thereby voiding probably 20,000+ laws already on the books in fifty states and federal laws.

The SCOTUS won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

I do agree that because the Parker case was decided on Second Amendment grounds, it's the perfect case to finally solve the most controversial aspect of the Bill of Rights.

An upholding of Parker could erase seventy three years of gun control legislation. A reversal of Parker would outrage eighty million lawful firearm owners and would result in a drastic alteration of the Bill of Rights and freedom itself.

These two possible serious outcomes of a SCOTUS ruling on Parker is exactly why they won't touch it.

Some semblance of firearm rights will return to Washington D.C. residents and that's all that will occur. So many people are getting all worked up for nothing in my humble opinion.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

jerubaal
I tend to disagree the Constition supercedes the law of the states.

Webb is not the
first left wing Democrap who has been caught up in the DC gun thing. At least he is not as big a hypocrit as most of them because he has supported the 2nd amendment in the past.

Does everbody remember left wing pundit Carl Rowen?

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/rowan.html


Seawolf
We have a problem with the increase in population in Northern Virginia. Our natural tendencies to be rebelious are being diluted by northern interlopers. The suburbs close to DC went for Webb. Apparently when people get smooshed together their IQs drop.

Webb showed what an elitist he is.
I first thought way to go, solid 2nd amendment guy even though he's a turncoat republican. Then he gives that pathetic little speech..."people in my position" indeed! The arrogance of the man, like his life is more important than that of the rest of us. Sounded like chuckie schumer, who it is widely reported, has a carry permit for NYC but is totaly against anyone else having one.

Webb says a mistake was made, yeah, it was made by stupid people in my state who voted for this guy.

Armed and Peaceful
The nightmare for the gun grabbers is an armed citizenry that causes a drop in crime. It would show their lies for what they are and destroy their rationale for trying to disarm honest people.

My home town,
Philadelphia, recently got the title back. I found that out about three weeks ago when I received an E mail forward. It was an article from the Philadelphia Daily News.

Again Philly is the murder capital of America. The title is based on the number of homicides committed since January 1, 2007. Since the 1980's the title has been held by Los Angeles and Washington, DC.


Gun buy-backs have been tried several times over the years in Philadelphia. Back when Frank Rizzo was mayor and had his own super stringent gun control policy, guns were all over the place. The Black Mafia, the Jamaican Posses, La Cosa Nostra, Russian and Asian gangs were killing each other all the time.


The state legislators finally informed the mayor that they made the law when it came to guns. The buy-backs and Rizzo's gun control didn't have any effect on the gun murders. I just saw the mayor of DC talking about how all the progress made under the ban on guns would be lost if this ruling is not reversed.


The jerk said that with great feeling. He may even have believed what he said. In a city that had Marion Berry in elected office at least twice, even after he was televised using crack with a woman in a motel room, even Bobo the dummy can get elected there.


The gun laws that were just struck down did not stop the slaughter on D.C. streets. That is a known fact, but it has no impact on the Democrat politicians in big cities. I really hope that the Supreme Court will finally make a definative ruling n this case. I guess it will give the two Bush appointees an opportunity to confirm their conservative bona fides. Or their lack of same.

umm
The second amendment doesn't apply to the states. They can take away everything including safety scissors if they want as long as they have a rational reason for it.

Of course, most states have their own second amendment.

Well...
...so why does Webb think he is "better" than the average citizen?

From listening to his pathetic waffling, he seems to think that politicians in DC should be able to carry firearms for protection but the citezenry should not.

The Leftinistra are SO arrogant...yes?

To the people afraid of evil guns
even toys that look like guns are dangerous, in response to Marc of CA in addition to the cost to citizens I wonder how many of the ACTUAL guns had been used in criminal activities and will probably be destroyed instead of being used as evidence?

A guard against gov't oppression...

'The framers of the Constitution understood that an armed society is a safe society. They understood that everyone is safer when criminals do not know who is armed, that foreign nations don't relish the thought of attacking an armed people, and that no government wants to oppress a citizenry that has the power to resist.'

Thanks for adding that last statement. Beware those who wish to disarm us.




BrianR
That crossbow turn-in for credit probably bought some kid a pair of Nikes.

You also didn't mention that of the 430 "weapons" turned in that 264 were "air weapons" or replicas (inoperative or not weapons at all).

So 61% weren't 'weapons'.

Wonder what that cost the citizens?

Oh, Man, a great laugh!
I just had a great laugh at the expense of the idiot gun-grabbers!

Look closely at the picture accompanying the article. It's "Part of the arsenal of weapons handed in to the Greater Manchester Police force during it's gun amnesty..."

...and front and center is...

a crossbow! Turned in during a gun amnesty!

Are those folks stupid, or what?


Right, guys
Further, the time and this case are right to go to SCOTUS for a definitive 2nd amendment ruling. There hasn't been a substantive case since Miller in 1939. This case would be the perfect one to pursue, and the makeup of SCOTUS right now would most likely secure the right.

I hope DC appeals the decision, as they threatened. But if they're smart (for their side), they'll let it go.


JFB2 is correct, as is Blackwell
However you should note that due to the Bill of Rights confirming the inalienable Rights that preceeded the Declaration of Independance and our Constitution, no poiticians ARE ALLOWED to take that from us.

And that is why we should have firearms to match the military arms of the period in the D.C..

Now a Federal Court in D.C. has agreed with the 5th District Court in Texas in the Emerson decision.

Oh boy the gun banners knickers just shrunk about 5 sizes.

Thank God for that.

Fundamental right
Mr. Blackwell is correct. The right to defend yourself and those that you care for is fundamental. No politician or partisan should be able to take that from you.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.