Washington, D.C.'s long standing ban on handguns is finally going to the Supreme Court. The ruling could change the way the second amendment is interpreted… the DC v. Heller handgun case. This will undoubtedly become another major issue in the Presidential campaign.

“The federal appeals court here, breaking with the great majority of federal courts to have examined the issue over the decades, ruled last March that the Second Amendment right was an individual one, not tied to service in a militia, and that the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on handguns was therefore unconstitutional.”

This will undoubtedly become another major issue in the Presidential campaign, or will it, and if so to what extent?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us...=1&oref=slogin

From my perspective, the 2nd Amendment is ALWAYS a huge issue in any presidential election. You've seen my discussion with Skell here.

Personally, I think the appeals court showed uncommon good sense in the Heller case. We'll see if SCOTUS has the same good sense. I know how Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito will vote. But I suspect the others on the court will continue to vote as they always have... in favor of the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual right. Such a ruling would seem to be counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers and previous Supreme Courts (the proof being that prior to the last 50 years, challenges to the right to bear arms were always shot down by the courts... there's 150 or so years of legal precedence in favor of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right). But since when did being counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers keep SCOTUS from making a ruling.

I suspect that we will see a return to the status quo ante at the end of the Heller case. But that's just my gut feeling.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

From my perspective, the 2nd Amendment is ALWAYS a huge issue in any presidential election. You've seen my discussion with Skell here.

Personally, I think the appeals court showed uncommon good sense in the Heller case. We'll see if SCOTUS has the same good sense. I know how Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito will vote. But I suspect the others on the court will continue to vote as they always have... in favor of the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual right. Such a ruling would seem to be counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers and previous Supreme Courts (the proof being that prior to the last 50 years, challenges to the the right to bear arms were always shot down by the courts... there's 150 or so years of legal precedence in favor of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right). But since when did being counter to the intent of the Founding Fathers keep SCOTUS from making a ruling.

I suspect that we will see a return to the status quo ante at the end of the Heller case. But that's just my gut feeling.

Elliot

---

For one thing none of the sitting judges has ruled on the Second Amendment as a justice, so I don’t know what they will do; and it’s been a long time since there was a ruling on the matter before the courts during a Presidential campaign. Therefore, if it’s always been a huge issue in any presidential election I expect it will then be GIGANTIC this time round.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

For one thing none of the sitting judges has ruled on the Second Amendment as a justice, so I don’t know what they will do; and it’s been a long time since there was a ruling on the matter before the courts during a Presidential campaign. Therefore, if it’s always been a huge issue in any presidential election I expect it will then be GIGANTIC this time round.:p

---

Good point.

No matter how the case is finally adjudicated, this will certainly bring to the forefront the importance of the power of the President to make judicial nominees, and the importance of voting for a President who will nominate judges that vote the way you support. In that sense, this will become a HUGE issue for 2008.

None of the candidates wants to defend taking handguns or long guns, for that matter, away from citizens... America is a violent culture, guns are the weapon of choice... we are PAST the point where, "Girl, you better get yourself a gun!"

The interesting question in my view is how the anti gun argument this time is a federalism case. They make the claim that the 1st part of the amendment makes it clear that the purpose is for maintaining militia. Although it is easily argued that the founders recognized that every able bodied man was the militia they still claim it is an issue to be decided locally(well regulated ) . Almost no one argues that the amendment is absolute and that there should be no restrictions so the question becomes ;who makes the decision?

George Mason U Professor Nelson Lund writes :

Quote:

---

One way to attack the D.C. Circuit [Parker] decision is to argue that the Second Amendment protects the private possession of weapons only to the extent necessary to preserve in civilian hands a stock of weapons suitable for use while serving in the militia. Rifles and shotguns would be the most obviously useful weapons for militiamen to bring with them from home, and the D.C. statute permits civilians to possess rifles and shotguns, along with the ammunition these weapons require. Why does this not satisfy the Second Amendment?

This superficially plausible defense of the District's statute was not adequately refuted in Judge Silberman's opinion for the D.C. Circuit. This article demonstrates, largely but not exclusively on the basis of a careful linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment, that such a defense of the District's statute is untenable.

---

Hamilton in Federalist 29 wrote :

Quote:

---

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...

---

Possibly indicating he thought it is was a local issue also .But he was also clearly in the camp of those who thought private ownership was a must.

Quote:

---

Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped

---

Madison wrote in Federalist 46 :

Quote:

---

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

---

Certainly Jeffersonians did view the 2nd Amendment in terms of the well regulated militia and came close to exercising it in 1800 when Jefferson was almost denied the presidency. St. George Tucker,who was a contemporary of Jefferson and a law professor at William and Mary College, wrote similar arguments linking the 2nd amendment with the 10th (federalism ) .He was very much a part of the Federalist v Jeffersonian debate of the 1790s. He was fearful that the interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8's granting Congress the right to mobilize and control aspects of the militia would be used as an excuse to disarm the states. Tucker accepted that most citizens would own their own muskets, or other militia weapons, but that the constitutional protection was clearly connected to their function as standard militia weapons.

I am not sure that all the originalists on the court are of a single mind on this issue and we know that even among the Republicans running for the Presidency there is a big disagreement.

It is my view that the right to bear arms stands independent of the local government's need to maintain and mobilize the militia.That view is supported by previous 2nd amendment cases... recently by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Quote:

---

"The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized."

---

(U.S. v. Emerson)

In view of what's happening in France we may want to re-evaluate this whole “Gun” matter.

"Police warned they were dealing with "urban guerrillas" with guns after rioting which began in suburbs north of the capital spread to other parts of the country following the deaths of two teenagers in Paris in a crash with a police car…."

:(

The rioters were using hunting rifles and shot guns;illegal guns according to their laws .As usual making them illegal does not prevent either their being obtained or used.

Quote:

---

Illegal weapons carrying in France increased by 12 percent in the last three years, according to the National Observatory for Delinquency, a state body created in 2003 by Sarkozy.

Violent crime recorded by the police, including threats, rose 8.7 percent in the last year in the Seine Saint-Denis region, where the 2005 riots broke out. French customs seized 192,560 arms in 2006, up from 122,507 in 2005.

---

Bloomberg.com: Europe

Sarko sent out 1000 cops yesterday in response to quell the rioting . I trust that in light of the use of firearms ,the French police were appropriately armed.

It's like Mexico, it is illegal for a citizen to posse a firearm, however, everyone has one except law abiding citizens.

I don't know if this counts as an answer or not, but here's some random thoughts:


1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.


2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.


3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.


4. America is not at war. The U.S. Military is at war. America is at the Mall.


5. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. (but shoot first anyway, then call 911)


6. A reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a .45?". The Ranger responded with, "Because they don't make a .46 "


6A. Note: they currently make a .50 cal




7. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.


8. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" "NO Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle." (Winchester Model 94 30-30 Cal. and loaded with Winchester Silver Tips, no doubt).


9. Beware the man who only has one gun.
HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!


A man was once asked if he had a gun in the house. To which he said he did.
The person said "well I certainly hope it`s NOT loaded!"
To which the man said, "of course it`s loaded."
The person then asked, "Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?"
The man replied, "No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching
afire either but I have fire extinguishers around, and THEY ARE ALL LOADED."



This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible
victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill
is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

I don't know if this counts as an answer or not, but here's some random thoughts:


1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.


2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.


3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.


4. America is not at war. The U.S. Military is at war. America is at the Mall.


5. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. (but shoot first anyway, then call 911)


6. A reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a .45?". The Ranger responded with, "Because they don't make a .46 "


6A. note: they currently make a .50 cal




7. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.


8. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" "NO Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle." (Winchester Model 94 30-30 Cal. and loaded with Winchester Silver Tips, no doubt).


9. Beware the man who only has one gun.
HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!


A man was once asked if he had a gun in the house. To which he said he did.
The person said "well I certainly hope it`s NOT loaded!"
To which the man said, "of course it`s loaded."
The person then asked, "Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?"
The man replied, "No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching
afire either but I have fire extinguishers around, and THEY ARE ALL LOADED."



This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible
victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill
is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

---

Good post, Dennis.

A few random thoughts of my own:

The late Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder the Jewish Defense League, used to have a slogan "For every Jew a .22". Someone once asked him why he said that. He replied, "Because 'For Every Jew a .357 Magnum' doesn't rhyme."

I once heard a special forces guy say that "Multiple guns are for pu$$ies and wankers. By the time you have used all the bullets in your primary weapon, you should have already captured your enemy's weapon and be using it against his colleagues. A handgun is only good for getting a shotgun, which is only good for getting a rifle."

Nobody ever lost a fight because of having too much firepower.

My martial arts teacher, Grandmaster Harvey I. Sober, once was asked why he moved out of the Bronx (back in the early 1980's before Rudy came long). He responded "Because Karate can't stop bullets." Coincidentally, he's also a marksman with both pistol and rifle. As are many of his students.

Never get into a gunfight with a weapon that starts with any number lower than a .4. Yes, this eliminates the .357 Magnum. I'd tather have the .44 Desert Eagle anyway. Or better yet, the .454 Winchester. (Too much gun for me to really use in a fight. It's too big for my hands, and it kicks like a mule, but its fun as heck to shoot. And it makes REALLY BIG holes in whatever the bullet hits.)

The trick to a gunfight is not in getting off the first shot, but rather in being alive to get off the last shot.

Always reload, and keep moving. Forgetting either one of these can ruin your day.

Body armor is good, but killing the enemy so he stops shooting at you is better.

If the enemy is in range, so are you.

There's no such thing as a fair fight. Getting killed is ALWAYS unfair, so make sure that it's the other guy who gets killed. Or as Patton put it, "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. They won by making the other b@st@rd die for his country."

And one just for you, Dennis: "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. If you get caught, you ain't a SEAL."

Elliot

How 'bout a few more?

"I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it." Clint Eastwood

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." William S Burroughs

“Remember the first rule of gunfighting... "have a gun."” Jeff Cooper

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto (Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.)

"Most people don’t ever want to use a gun to protect themselves — that’s the last thing they want to do — but if you know how and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they’ve got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief." Louisiana Governor Mike Foster

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent

Comments on this post
tomder55 agrees: I also like the one EXCON says : an armed society is a polite one .

Clearly not the case though! I'd hardly call shooting dead dozens of kids while at school polite.

Elliot I was going to bring up the recent events in Finland, the Country with Europe's most lax gun laws and most recent victim of a mass shooting, but thought otherwise because it is just going over old ground and I think we have all made our stands clear.

I like the quote you gave Dennis by Yamamoto. The problem is that all those guns behind all those blades of grass are now doing damage to your society that I'm sure not even he could imagine achieving.

Skell,

I prefer the comparison between American society today compared to Imperial Japan, the Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Byzantine Empire, and every other empire in history where weapons were prohibitted. Sure, in those societies crime rates were probably lower than they were in the USA. But that's because it wasn't a crime for someone of the upper crust of society to murder someone of the lower class.

For example: The Samurai could kill any of his underlings with impunity, and often did. They tested their swords by lining up slaves and seeing how many bodies the sword could cut though with a single stroke. And that was not a crime, it was just how society worked. Because the possession of weapons by anyone other than Samurai was illegal.

Compare that to the USA today. It is illegal to murder anyone... regardless of the position of the criminal or the victim in society. So while crime rates are higher, it is because society has shown marked improvement in terms of equality. And that equality was only achieved and can only be maintained through the right to bear arms. If some or all of the population were suddenly prohibited from possessing firearms, how long would it be before they became a 2nd-class citizenry, with those who may possess weapons (government officials) being the upper class, capable of doing anything they wish with impunity?

And please don't say that it can't happen in a modern well-cultured society, because it DID happen, just six decades ago in Germany. It happened in South Africa, but the Black South Africans FOUGHT against that system with arms for decades, and won their freedom and brought an end to apartheid.

Elliot

It sure is illegal but it doesn't prevent it happening way too often. Another 8 bodies go on the ever growing list in Nebraska today. What a shame. It isn't working people! How many more will it take until someone realises this?

Yes, had more mall members been carrying weapons, this man with a hunting rifle would not have gotten off all of those shots before others in the mall would have taken him down.

Yes, I do hope they get it right and give people the rights to carry their guns properly again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

yes, had more mall members been carrying weapons, this man with a hunting rifle would not have gotten off all of those shots before others in the mall would have taken him down.

yes, i do hope they get it right and give people the rights to carry thier guns properly again

---

But that is a load of BS Father. Mass shootings still happen in the states with the most lax gun laws! Where are all the citizens with guns then?? It just doesn't stack up! Elliot presents an argument for gun ownership decreasing crime! Its an argument but in my opinion a weak one. The fact is poor gun control certainly reflects in poor records when it comes to gun related deaths and in particular mass shootings of innocent people and in many cases children. I'd rather be mugged because I didn't have a gun then shot dead with my gun still in my belt!

Do you keep a gun in your church Father Chuck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

But that is a load of BS Father. Mass shootings still happen in the states with the most lax gun laws!

---

Really? Where?

Quote:

---

Where are all the citizens with guns then??

---

They are being prevented fom carrying guns. It's the fact that they DON'T have guns that make crimes like this possible. If the states allowed citizens to carry, and citizens were actually carrying, do you think that the shooter would have been able to kill 8 people without eing taken out first?

Quote:

---

It just doesn't stack up! Elliot presents an argument for gun ownership decreasing crime! Its an argument but in my opinion a weak one. The fact is poor gun control certainly reflects in poor records when it comes to gun related deaths and in particular mass shootings of innocent people and in many cases children.

---

Can you name one case of a mass shooting where the citizenry was armed?

I can name a case right off the top of my head where an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting from becoming MUCH WORSE... the Salt Lake City shooting, where an off-duty cop took out the shooter before he could kill large numbers.

Quote:

---

I'd rather be mugged because I didn't have a gun then shot dead with my gun still in my belt!

---

You ought to learn quick-draw and tactical shooting, then. Then you won't have to worry about your gun still being in your belt when it ought to be in your hand. And a bit of hand-to-hand combat training might help to... a self-defense move might give you that extra second you need to draw and fire. A well-rounded self-defense plan or armed and unarmed training.

Quote:

---

Do you keep a gun in your church Father Chuck?

---

Depends on which state he lives in. If gun ownership is legal in the state in which he resides, he ought to.

Elliot

Hello again:

Let's talk about the Constitution. I don't know if people kill people or guns kill people. In terms of the Constitution, it doesn't matter.

Unlike my friends on the right, I don't pick which of the first 10 Amendments to support.

In my view, the founders believed in individual gun ownership. One can argue all day long about whether the Bill of Rights are a GOOD thing or a BAD thing. I'll vote good.

excon

Sometimes it helps to go back to the Federalist Papers which tell us a whole lot about that not-so-mysterious legal phrase "The Framers' Intent." The words of the writers and leaders of that time in other documents shed much light on the subject, and in my opinion provide unassailable evidence that an armed citizenry was in fact the intent.

For example:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788.

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788.

The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;…" Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers # 29.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

"... one loves to possess arms, though[ugh] they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to George Washington, June 19, 1796.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967). (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785)

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them …" Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775. I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

And my personal favorite:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.


I personally do not see the legal dilemma.