September 5, 2007

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die."

The District of Columbia's petitions the Supreme Court to review the case that struck down the city's ban on handguns.
"No other provision of the Bill of Rights even arguably requires a government to tolerate serious physical harm on anything like the scale of the devastation worked by handguns," the petition states....

The court ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

The court acknowledged that its decision was groundbreaking; only one other federal appeals court -- that of the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans -- has recognized an individual's right to gun ownership, and it nevertheless upheld the federal gun-control law at issue. Nine other circuits around the country have endorsed the collective right.
Given that split, it's likely the Court will take the case.


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 206 of 206
Too many jims said...

Fen said...
Why would they commit the right to militias, when every other article in the Bill of Rights applies to the people?

The 10th?

Revenant said...

the 2nd was to be inserted in Article 1, section 9. an interesting choice.

That's the same place the first amendment was going to be inserted, too. But there's nothing much to be guessed from that, since both amendments are obviously limits on the powers of Congress anyway -- you'd expect them to wind up in 1.9.

Regardless of whether you read the second as protecting an individual right or a state right, it would have ended up in the "limits on Congress" section, i.e. 1.9.

lee david said...

Mr House.

Busy right now. Hope to be able to respond tonight.

Revenant said...

The 10th?

The 10th applies to both the people and the states.

But, like I mentioned earlier, the 10th amendment itself protects the right of states to raise and arm militias (among other things). So why would they create a 2nd amendment that did the same thing? What would be the point?

The founders were not silly enough to think that the *state* governments would protect them from tyranny. They had experience with abusive and/or feckless state governments before and during the Revolution, after all. They believed in the militia, but they did not believe in the militia having to answer to ANY governmental body.

Trooper York said...

Eli Wallach to Yul Brenner and Steve McQueen in the Magnificent
Seven: "They want horses...give them horses....they want women...give them women....they want guns!"

Kev said...

I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but I wanted to weigh in with at least one point about the Carter Albrecht story: It wasn't the door of an apartment he was beating on, but the back door of a house (see here); I think the residence was misidentified as an apartment in some of the stories that went out over the national wire.

Also, a story this week noted that the homeowner fired through the very top of his door in an effort to scare the intruder, but Albrecht had the misfortune of being 6' 5" and got hit anyway. (He was a beloved local rock musician with a national profile, so this has gotten a lot of press down here.)

And DTL, I doubt the DA in the story had anything to do with Lawrence; almost everyone in that office is brand-new since Dallas County turned out all the Republicans in last November's elections. (And please, lighten up on the stereotypes of all Texans as gun-totin' cowboys. I've been here since I was eight years old, and I haven't as much as touched a gun since we did BB shooting in YMCA day camp in fifth grade.)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 206 of 206   Newer› Newest»