Supreme Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban

It's nice to know that 56% of the Supremes can read and understand a simple statement in the Bill of (individual) Rights!

Also that they were able to figure out that assigning a power for state governments to arm their militia would have been TOTALLY out of PLACE in a Bill of INDIVIDUAL Rights (save that last of the 10 which mentions the States as well as the People).

As for the other 4..., they must simply see their role as one of preserving GOVERNMENT Powers OVER the Citizens, ignoring the fact that our founding documents make clear that power comes from the bottom up. Not the top down.
Also interesting to note that they were also four of the five who said there is essentially no limit on government's power to take private property in the Kelo decision a couple years back.

The stupid libs wanted to take this to the Bush Supreme Court. What did they expect. Before, it could be argued, now it can't. It is clear now. Obama will lose in November because he has these stupid libs as advisers. Dumb, dumb.

This case will do away with California's defacto ban on hand gun permits.

You are wrong

A: Who are you talking to, Frank?

B: What are they wrong about, and how do you support your argument that they are wrong?

C: Where did you learn your debating skills?

The Court treats the District’s trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a “lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States(like the First Amendment, e.g. right to privacy for abortion), but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation just like in "Roe v. Wade").

Am I the only one that finds it really stupid discussing what the f"ounding fathers" had in mind to solve a modern problem?
Come on, the constitution was written when the deadliest firearm was a one shot rifle and ak47 where pretty rare!!
And remember almost all the "founding fathers" owned slaves. So lets bring back slavery

The city is full of illegal guns owned by criminals. It makes no sense to remove the right to own a legal firearm.

Better, mandatory 15 year sentences for an illegal gun and 25 for an illegal gun used in a crime. No pussyfooting around.

My right to defend my home is made more important in the face of a massive criminal underclass that is armed to the teeth.

Come on, the constitution was written when the deadliest firearm was a one shot rifle and ak47 where pretty rare!!

Sorry.

I have, and can show you, an original New York newspaper from the year 1802 (Jefferson was president), which displays ads of items for public sale. It was printed on hemp paper, so it's in better shape than a paper printed in 1972!

Lispenard & Hart of #12 Broad Street, NYC were offering for public sale:
2 pair - 9 pound cannon
8 - 6 pounders, double fortified
4 - 4 pounders, double fortified
and 200 casks of gunpowder.

Just so were straight on what the most devestating weapons of the day were, and what restrictions the Founding Fathers thought were appropriate on them.

If interested, I'll scan and post a copy of that paper for anyone who is willing to examine the facts of early "gun control".

PLS: The founding fathers thought freedom of speech and the press important too. I suppose you want those in play now too?

Why don't you actually read the entire decision, and maybe you'll understand better.

You gun-toting fools. Lets give every nation the nuclear bomb, then we'll be safe, right? Who cares WHAT the founding fathers thought about guns. We're here now.

There is a difference between owning a single handgun and owning a nuke, no? Or, why do lefties only speak in hyperbole?

"And remember almost all the "founding fathers" owned slaves. So lets bring back slavery"

Sorry.

The Constitution was PROPERLY and LEGALLY Amended to outlaw slavery.

Until such time as the Constitution is PROPERLY and LEGALLY Amended to eliminate the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, this argument doesn't wash.

Lets give every nation the nuclear bomb, then we'll be safe, right?

Probably the Iraqis & the Iranians would be safer if they had them.
No?

Who cares WHAT the founding fathers thought about guns.

As Eric Blair estutely asked previously: Do you want to put the rest of the Bill of Rights in play too?
Just because the Constitution was written a long time ago?

How 'bout the elected government those old fools wrote into the Constitution?
Maybe we should just let the ruling class have it's way, and not have to mess with getting voted into their offices?

PLS,

Slaverly was abolished by the 13th Amendment. That's the proper way to update our constitution. If we as a country decide handguns or other such ordinance should be banned, there should be an amendment. I don't blame the libs for not wanting to do this, since such an amendment would likely fail miserably. Better to legislate unconstitutional laws into existence and hope there are enough judges who share your ideological bent.

Interesting that the first clause of the Second Amendment should be ENTIRELY ignored in decision.

You know the one... "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [...]"

The constitution is not the fricking holy grail. Parts of it that are good, are good, and we should keep them and uphold them--like freedom to speech, right to an attorney. But we live in the 21st century. No, a handgun is not as devastating as a nuclear bomb, but its the same principle. If nuclear bombs were prevented from being dispersed--as the US is attempting to do right now in relation to Iran--the threat of a nuclear bomb attack would be greatly diminished.

Why do you even want a handgun? To go hunting? Please. Handguns are used only for PEOPLE. Just because some old dead dudes thought it was a good idea to make guns available--oh yeah, weren't we living on a DANGEROUS FRONTEIR where protection was actually necessary, not a civilized police-guarded state? There's a reason that America has much higher murder rates than other actually developed nations. Because we're run by a bunch of egotistical gun loonies who like to think that having a powerful piece of metal makes them a stronger, safer, better person.

Interesting that the first clause of the Second Amendment should be ENTIRELY ignored in decision.

Who says it was ignored?

Fact is, it is what's called "a preamble", not a limiting clause. It's purpose is to state one reason why the following statement Right is being protected. It does not impose a limit on the Right, which Shall Not Be Infringed.
At least not under the standard rules of English grammar.

Here's an excellent discussion of the language involved (by language experts):
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

And another:
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3230

Hey Sensible explain Canada to me then.

"The constitution is not the fricking holy grail."

No, but it DOES happen to be the highest law of the land.

If it's so severely out of date, and a suitable majority of today's Americans believe we should start doing away with the Rights it preserves for us, then By God, AMEND it to remove the Rights!!

The Old Fools left us a mechanism to do it, so put your views to the test and push for an Amendment to strike the #2 point in the Bill of Rights!

Go For It!

Just because some old dead dudes thought it was a good idea to make guns available--oh yeah, weren't we living on a DANGEROUS FRONTEIR where protection was actually necessary, not a civilized police-guarded state?

Actually, one of the primary reasons they wanted to reserve this right for their descendants is that they had recently suffered attempts by an oppressive government to disarm them.

And believe it or not, you are NOT living in a civilized, police guarded state!
Just ask the Supreme Court. You have NO Right to expect personal police protection just because you pay taxes and call 911. Their decisions on the matter couldn't be clearer.
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

There's a reason that America has much higher murder rates than other actually developed nations.

Another fallacy.
A number of nations with MUCH stricter laws than the US, including outright bans on ALL firearms ownership (such as Jamaica instituted in the '70s), have considerably HIGHER murder rates than the US.
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441

Just the fact that humans feel it is necessary to have handguns and nuclear bombs is sufficient proof that we are not evolved enough as a species to justify having them.

Lets do-se-do around the constitution shall we...

["The constitution is not the fricking holy grail."]

How utterly "George Bush"!

"The Constitution is just a God-damned piece of Paper!"

Therefore, Bush's government shouldn't consider itself bound by the limits it places on their powers, and they can arrest whoever they want without showing probable cause..., force the Telecos, the banks, the libraries, to turn over whatever records they demand and generally just do whatever the hell they claim they need to do.

Yeah, That's how we ought to let our government operate!

Sorry, but I like the old fashioned concept that the Constitution is the agreement under which We, The People grant certain SPECIFIED Powers to the Federal Government, and those are THE ONLY powers they are to exercise.

Thank you, "Uh..., NO!" for the grammar lesson.

First off, the "preamble" was ignored, insomuch as the recent decision focuses solely on a person's "right" to bear arms without any regards to the purpose of WHY that right "shall not be infringed."

Second, a preamble is "an introductory [...] section of a [...] formal document, setting out its intention, scope" (OED). Therefore, the preamble does hold weight when interpreting the entirety of the Second Amendment. When the Amendment was designed, there was no formal or institutionalized military, therefore, in order to maintain security, it was necessary for civilians to keep guns. It's YOU who suggests that "It's purpose is to state ONE reason;" based on what?

And in regards to the sites you suggested, I would love to read Roy Copperud's full interpretation, because while he may seem unbiased, Schulman certainly is biased and his cut-and-pasting of Copperud's points seems sketchy at best. (Try reading his points without reading Schulman's slanted questions.)

"A number of nations with MUCH stricter laws than the US, including outright bans on ALL firearms ownership (such as Jamaica instituted in the '70s), have considerably HIGHER murder rates than the US."

Jamaica is tradionally considered a developing country and thus not part of what the original poster wanted to compare with. Correlation between homicide rates and percentage gun overship is almost one in developed countries.

Also remember that there is no mention of guns in the second amendment, the word is arms. Anyone who argues against personal nuclear (or biological or chemical) weapons (and I would hope that includes most people) will then have to accept that there is a valid discussion about which arms are included in this right. My personal opinion is that shotguns are, hand guns probably aren't and Uzis clearly aren't, but I am perfectly willing to accept that this is something that rational people can discuss.

Five of the Justices can read but are hamstrung by gun nuts. This is a great example of right wing hypocrisy: the right wing complains that the Federal government is too overpowering and should not take away states' right and then does just that when it suits their wacky world view. Bottom line: a community has a right to protect itself from guns nuts forcing guns and violence on citizens.

I would think pooticians would be leery of having guns in Washington considering the record of assasinations in the country

Let`s skip all that"bull-shit"
argument here,because it says:
....On a practical level, the decision simply means that for the first time in 30 years, D.C. residents will be able to get a license to keep handguns...etc. That`s sick !!
That said,my fears are based
on such facts as GOP-Huckabee
sick,reckless,inviting comment about presidential candidate
Barack Obama "being targeted
by some potential assassin".
Now that`s really outrageous, sick,offensive by any standard
So,is this new law designed to help,to enable someone to make it actually indeed happen ?
Well,his country must be sick!

Check out the US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the militia, which has two classes: organized (the National Guard and Naval Militia) and unorganized (for the rest of us). Seems like it's a subtle way of justifying the draft, but it does also make me a militiaman. Can I have my gun now please?

Scandinavian Liberal, you come from a failed state. Our African Americans have a higher standard of living than you do. I don't mean to imply that the guns help them(e.g. drug and prostitution trade), but it is probably due to affirmative action. Any way, you come from a failed state and are insignificant in the world. America is 25 % of the world economy. We matter, you don't. So just shut up.

To imagine this new ruling will primarily safeguard individual's right to have handguns (as those early fathers protected themselves against tyranny) is ridiculous! It will simply put handguns in the hands of criminals. Who is the NRA hoping to protect? Themselves!

Well, unorganized certainly does not equate with well-regulated.

Dan Paashaus writes: To imagine this new ruling will primarily safeguard individual's right to have handguns ... is ridiculous! It will simply put handguns in the hands of criminals. Who is the NRA hoping to protect? Themselves!

Are you under the illusion that the DC handgun ban was preventing criminals in The District from acquiring handguns? REALLY...?!?!
That "criminals" were, just in this case, obeying the law? REALLY...?!?!

As to "Who is the NRA hoping to protect?"... you ARE aware that the NRA initially fought tooth & nail to PREVENT this case from being appealed to the S.C ..., AREN'T You?!?!
That they only hopped onboard with an amicus brief after it was clear that they weren't going to be able to stop it?

Peter, you are a consumate Troll!!

Knew I was going to have to go over "organized/unorganized" and "well-regulated." They actually don't equate. Look, if the 2nd Amendment meant to mean ONLY the organized militia could bear arms, it wouldn't later use the phrase "..the right of the PEOPLE..." Obviously "people" implies a broader class than "well-regulated militia." After all, just because there exists an unorganized militia doesn't mean the government can't regulate this militia - i.e., regulate which weapons can and can't be possessed by each class. Which means the States WOULD seem to be perfectly fine in banning handguns. Except apparently SCOTUS thinks that only allowing long guns is too constricting a regulation.

Remember, this case wasn't about owning all guns - residents of DC could still have rifles and shotguns, just with trigger locks employed. It was about having handguns. So it seems the case was really about how far the government can go in it's regulations, and apparently the majority believed the state had indeed overstepped its bounds.

Carlos writes: ...my fears are based on such facts as GOP-Huckabee sick, reckless,inviting comment about presidential candidate Barack Obama "being targeted by some potential assassin".
Hillary Clinton also brought up the issue.
...
So,is this new law designed to help,to enable someone to make it actually indeed happen ?

There IS no "new law".

And what do you think the chances are that someone plotting an assasination at that level is going to jump through all the hoops and fill out all the government paperwork to LEGALLY buy a handgun to use for such a high-profile, despicable deed?

J wrote: ...just because there exists an unorganized militia doesn't mean the government can't regulate this militia - i.e., regulate which weapons can and can't be possessed by each class. Which means the States WOULD seem to be perfectly fine in banning handguns. Except apparently SCOTUS thinks that only allowing long guns is too constricting a regulation.

Funny about that.
If you go back to the Miller decision in 1939 (the last time they commented on the 2nd Amendment), The Court spoke about the government's right to regulate the possession of short shotguns because they were NOT militia class weapons, and our right to possess militia-suitable weapons WAS protected by the 2nd.
Justice McReynolds, writing for the court: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
That statement would seem to argue that the government could NOT regulate in that arena.

More recently, gun-control proponents & politicians have used the "No legitimate SPORTING use" argument against whatever classes of weapons they sought to prohibit at the moment.

This case seems to have been argued, reasoned and decided on whether Americans have a right to possess weapons suitable for their personal defense from criminals.

The introductory clause was completely ignored by Fat Tony Scalia. The Founders did not use words frivolously. If they had meant the 2nd Amendment to mean uninfringable individual rights, they would have started it "A well-armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Of course, Fat Tony also was behind the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, Bush v. Gore.

Peter: Our African Americans have a higher standard of living than you do.

SL: Please think before posting. Any population group in the US would be thrilled with a GNP per capita of $57k (DK), $64k (IS) or $84k (NO) instead of the measly $46k of the US (SE and FI are similar to US). Look up GDP (nominal) per capita on the Wikipedia, the numbers above are from the IMF but you can get similar results from World Bank or CIA. And brag as much as you want about the size of the US economy, but remember that the EU is significantly larger (same source).

That said, I am living - legally and happily - in the US and has been for 12 years. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that goes on here.

I did grow up in Denmark, a country that has free healthcare, free college, surplus on public finances and positive balance of payments. Probably doesn't sound like a failed state to many people.

GVC: Justice McReynolds, writing for the court: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
That statement would seem to argue that the government could NOT regulate in that arena.

SL: Isn't that statement exactly what the DC law was about: You can have a shotgun (relevant for a militia and therefore protected by the 2nd), but you cannot have a handgun (not relevant for a militia and therefore not protected)?

Scandinavian Liberal, your country has been taken over by third world Muslims. Denmark is a failed state. It has nothing to offer to the most successful country in the world, America. If you don't like it here , go back to Denmark and get yourself a hijab and a prayer rug. The Denmark that you left is gone, thanks to your liberalism. It will never exist again. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Scandinavian Liberal, for years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:

* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.

Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.

* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."

* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.

In Norway, we do not have this problem. We are not like the stupid Danes. I know, the Danes, they are as stupid as the third world Muslims in their country.

Whoever said we are not very evolved as a society is correct. What is a handgun for? To shoot someone. There have been so many studies that show that handguns in the home actually do not prevent crime or keep people safer, and the dangers of children getting hurt far outweigh the defend the home premise. I was an inner city school teacher. I went to many funerals of children who were shot by handguns. They were not these "criminals" you all like to imagine, just kids with the same hopes and dreams as any other kids. There will be more of these shootings now than before.If you have ever loved someone who was killed by a handgun, you understand why DC tried to regulate their use.

anita, dear, if we had families with two parents raising the children, instead of selfish single mothers, we would not have the problems with the males searching for their manhood with a gun. Who just need to learn to take responsibility for your own failures.

Scandanavian Liberal: "Isn't that statement exactly what the DC law was about: You can have a shotgun (relevant for a militia and therefore protected by the 2nd), but you cannot have a handgun (not relevant for a militia and therefore not protected)?"

No, actually. The court in '39 ruled that you could NOT have a short shotgun, specifically because it was not a suitable weapon for militia use (apparently ignorant of the history of short shotguns having been widely used as trench weapons in the then-recent Great War, and in at least three cases they had figured into Medal of Honor citations).

Pistols, likewise, are quite widely used in the military, as you must know if you've seen any photos, video or even paintings from combat at least as far back as the 18th Century. Likewise, a 1911 .45 pistol was prominently used by Sgt. Alvin York in the action that won him a Medal of Honor. (Recent battlefield archaeology work turned up the empty casings of all 21 of the rounds he fired with it, and four spent bullets.)
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.tac-bsa.org/sgt_york_research_expedition.pdf
Hard to argue it (the pistol) isn't a "militia weapon".

Further, your first statement seems to argue that we should be allowed to own & carry a full-auto M-16, as this is the most widely used personal weapon in the US military, and has been for over 40 years.
James Madison made clear in his writings (see Federalist #46) that he favored an armed & trained population not ONLY as a body to draw upon to oppose foreign invasion, but also as a counterbalance to any standing army that could be raised by centarl government, and used as a hammer to oppress the citizenry and the States.

Alexander Hamilton was clear on it also:
"...that standing army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

["The Founders did not use words frivolously."]

Of course they didn't. But they WOULD change the meaning of a particular word at various places in the document.

That's why, when they said "the People" in every other instance in the document they meant "the People", but in the second amendment the words "the People" really only means "militia members".

Thomas Jefferson's advise on interpreting the Constitution has been entirely ignored in the last century.
"On every question of construction, 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 invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
--Thomas Jefferson to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823--

Check your local library for a copy of: The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins if you really care to examine EXACTLY what the Founders were agreeing to as they constructed and revised the B.O.R. Their own discussions of the matters WERE recorded.
Very educational.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS

It is not primarily for their collecting; nor primarily for their hunting; nor even primarily for their self-defense against violent criminals; it is primarily for well regulated militias in every state; ready, when faced with intolerable governmental tyranny, for explosive bloody revolt to preserve their Liberty.

Just as every sensible American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use the automobile for transportation; so too every sensible American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use the gun for revolution.

Every well informed American knows that the Right to Bear Arms is a sacred integral part of the American system of Constitutional government, by the People and for the People, in which their executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are subordinate to the supreme democratic majority will of the People.

Every sensible American governmental official has a very healthy fear of this inherent revolutionary power of the American People.

Every American governmental official knows that any action subversive to the Constitutional Rights of the American People is an act of tyranny.

["There will be more of these shootings now than before."]

Do you have some evidence that the ban on honest citizens owning handguns actually reduced the number of shootings? I'd be interested to see it.

Boston Globe doesn't find any evidence to support it:
Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.
...
"One of the difficult things is, you can't measure what didn't happen," Singer said. "You can't measure how many guns didn't come into the District because we have this law."

But you can measure the violence that did occur, using the bellwether offense of homicide to chart the ebb and flow of crime in the District since the ban was enacted. And the violence here over those years was worse than in most other big cities, many of them in states with far less restrictive gun laws."
www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/11/18/effectiveness_of_dc_gun_ban_still_a_mystery/

Here's a chart with 2002 numbers of homicides per 100,000:
www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

DC tops all the fifty states with a rate of 31.2 / 100,000, over half-again as many as the second place state @ 20 per.
#34, Vermont, which has absolutely NO restrictions on honest citizens buying and carrying handguns shows less than 1/3 the homicides DC boasts.
States like Texas, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota and Indiana which routinely issue concealed carry permits to non-criminals show about 1/3 or less of the DC rate.

["...you understand why DC tried to regulate their use."]

What I understand is that DC did regulate them.
Sounded like a good idea at the time, 'eh? They OUTLAWED them ENTIRELY for honest citizens, and the numbers are what the numbers are.
So, do you feel safer in DC with it's gun ban, or in Vermont?

Apparently, the gun ban proponent's argument goes: "What DC's been doing hasn't worked, so let's keep doing what we're doing."

The Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, where they imagined a right to privacy, where none is stated, resulted in the deaths of millions, not just thousands from guns.

Free people have the right to keep and bear arms those in a police state do not. Let me give you anti gunners some one to look up to:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." — Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939

Bad analogy. Just as felons, gang members and many others, are prohibited from legally owning firearms, the "gun control" laws only affect law abiding citizens. If a bad person wants a weapon they will find a way to get it.
I'm all for safety, If some crackhead gang member breaks into my home wielding a weapon of any kind, I will be able to protect my family. You have the right not to own a firearm , just as I have the inalienable right to. Don't infringe on my rights and I won't infringe on yours.
Peace!

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto(Japanese Navy)

An armed society is a polite society.

Let's clamp down on felons and the mentally unstable. Nice to know we can defend ourselves legally.

I was going to anyway, law or no law

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

Criminals have and always will be able to get guns. Even without guns, violent criminals can and will threaten and destroy their victims. I live next to an unstable guy who is probably a drug dealer, definitely a drug user. Should he flip his lid someday, and try to break into my house wielding a gun, knife, or bat, me and my wife should have the right to use the best TOOL to protect ourselves from serious harm or death. Both of us are not in the best of shape, so we would NEED the advantage of the best TOOL available even if the attacker is just carrying a folding knife.

In the old west, Colt made a smallish handgun for the ladies that got the nickname: 'the equalizer'. It allowed the small or weak or older members of society to properly defend themselves.

Please don't work to take away a fine tool for my personal defense.

The police almost NEVER prevent a homicide, they just respond to them. Lotta good that does the victim...

Oh, and those 'studies' that showed guns in the house are more dangerous have been proven seriously flawed. Sorry, I don't have the link to show you right now.

Finally, I am currently researching a variety of political philosophies and am very attracted to progressivism, except for this gun issue. I thought a founding principle of progressivism is the belief that humans are basically good. If progressives believe that, then why not trust that MOST folk who choose to carry a gun to defend themselves will do so responsibly, with good in their heart?

Nat Henthoff, the libral Constitutional scholar, wrote in 1992 that his research convinced him that the Second Amendment was about an individual right. Also note that part of the impetus in guaranteeing the individual right was to reassure slave owners that they would not be disarmed by the government -- they needed their arms to control slaves. Also note that the way to try to implement gun control is to increase state power to the point that a police state may become established, and that no police state has ever been entirely successful in controlling its population.

Peter McAdam writes: "Nat Henthoff, the libral Constitutional scholar, wrote in 1992 that his research convinced him that the Second Amendment was about an individual right."

Nat has company in the community of Liberal legal scholars, as this 2007 NY Times article points out:
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/us/07firearms.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation.
...
The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (Some transcriptions of the amendment omit the last comma.)

If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.

Nine states bills of rights included a right to bear arms provision. All nine stated specifically that it was because of the danger of maintaining a large standing professional army. The Federalist also speaks to the issue of the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of avoiding having a large military. It has nothing to do with all of the present day issues and since we spend more than half of the world's defense monies, obviously we are violating the Second Amednment with impunity. I am not surprised that a conservative court ruled the way they did. It will get worse.

This leftist supports the right to bear arms because she's not real enthused about the idea of getting her @$$ shot off by some wacko right-winger. So quit making this a liberals vs. conservatives argument because it is anything but. Liberals bleed the same color conservatives do. The Constitution applies to everyone.

If neocons cared half as much about the rest of the Constitution as they do about the Second Amendment (which is also vital, don't mistake me), the nation wouldn't be in its present predicament.

Oh, and? Didn't it used to be the LIBERAL argument that part of the reason we need the Second Amendment is that people need to preserve the right to go hunting? Since when do Scalia and Roberts co-opt the biggest liberal cop-out that exists about the right to bear arms?

The 2nd amendment has one big reason to bear arms. For a well trained militia to protect the state. This ruling is not for this reason, the people are not a well trained militia. You would have to amend the Constitution or train these people to be a well trained militia. As for hunting, that is just mind boggling.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason-- June 16, 1788
Debates in Virginia onvention on Ratification of the Constitution

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
--Richard Henry Lee-- 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe-- June 18, 1789
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,"

The point about the militia is that the militia is the people themselves. It was only because the people were personally armed that the American Revolution was even possible. It could not have been fought or won without private individuals keeping and bearing arms.

The founders knew that an armed populace would be the only guarantee against the incursions of tyranny, even by an elected government. In order for people to be able to effectively bear arms, they would have to keep arms. In order for a militia (a band of armed citizens) to be prepared to fight, they would have to own firearms and know how to use them.

But apart from all that, every person has a natural right to defend themselves, their families and property from mortal threat. As long as criminals are armed, everyone has the moral right to be armed. Note that when Britain confiscated the guns from the people, gun crime soared. And no wonder; the criminals did not surrender their guns, only the law-abiding did so, thus becoming helpless marks, easy victims.

Don't let that happen in America!

It's very important to remember that the DC handgun ban did not restrict the possession of unmodified shot guns or rifles. I accept that many DC residents had illegal handguns already and that this ruling has the effect of decriminalizing that reality.

Still, the fact that hunting seems to be the basis for this ruling gives me chills: just what - or more to the point WHO - is the "game?"

Just pointing out... writes:
"First off, the "preamble" was ignored, insomuch as the recent decision focuses solely on a person's "right" to bear arms without any regards to the purpose of WHY that right "shall not be infringed."

Uh..., NO! I'm afraid you are still incorrect.
It was NOT ignored, as you'd know if you had read the majority opinion.

Example:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists' Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814-821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed." That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause ("The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence." The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268-269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42-45 (2d ed. 1874).3 " 'It is nothing unusual in acts ... for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.' " J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882)...

You want to know how much attention the REALLY paid to the preamble, or "prefatory clause" as they refer to it in the decision, along with it's realtionship to "The Right"? Try this on to see if it fits your argument:

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... ."

a. "Well-Regulated Militia."
In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster ("The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations"); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) ("near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ("[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms").

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that "[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15-16)." Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise ... Armies"; "to provide ... a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it--and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms").

b. "Security of a Free State."
The phrase "security of a free state" meant "security of a free polity," not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued, see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that "the word 'state' is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community." 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the Second Amendment's prefatory clause: "The militia is the natural defence of a free country"). It is true that the term "State" elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase "security of a free state" and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a " 'free country' " or free polity. See Volokh, "Necessary to the Security of a Free State," 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of "state" in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States--"each state," "several states," "any state," "that state," "particular states," "one state," "no state." And the presence of the term "foreign state" in Article I and Article III shows that the word "state" did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be "necessary to the security of a free state." See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary--an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress's "command of the militia" could be used to create a "select militia," or to have "no militia at all," but also, as a separate concern, that "[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed." 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508-509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right--unlike some other English rights--was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer's assertion that individual self-defense is merely a "subsidiary interest" of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue--but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right's codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a "novel principl[e]" but rather codified a right "inherited from our English ancestors," Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8--if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment's guarantee--it does not assure the existence of a "citizens' militia" as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

But it was "Entirely Ignored", you say?

You also remark:
It's YOU who suggests that "It's purpose is to state ONE reason;" based on what?

And in regards to the sites you suggested, I would love to read Roy Copperud's full interpretation, because while he may seem unbiased, Schulman certainly is biased and his cut-and-pasting of Copperud's points seems sketchy at best...

Based on the points made in this part of the decision:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists' Brief).

You don't think Schulman's treatment accurately reflected Copperud's analysis? Look up Amicus Curiae 3 "The Linguists' Brief" and see if you like it any better.

Egalitare writes: Still, the fact that hunting seems to be the basis for this ruling gives me chills...

But the decision did not revolve around "hunting" at all! In fact, hunting got very little mention in the majority opinion.

Again, from the opinion:
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right--unlike some other English rights--was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer's assertion that individual self-defense is merely a "subsidiary interest" of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue--but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right's codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a "novel principl[e]" but rather codified a right "inherited from our English ancestors," Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8--if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment's guarantee--it does not assure the existence of a "citizens' militia" as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

In fact, it was the DISSENTING Opinion that repeatedly mentioned Hunting, and the word only appeared twice in the Majority statement (other than in the footnotes).

You can read it all for yourself, if you care to.
h_t_t_p_:_/_/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290&friend=usatoday

Alan states: "Nine states bills of rights included a right to bear arms provision. All nine stated specifically that it was because of the danger of maintaining a large standing professional army."

Seven of the nine had a bit more to say than that.

Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them--Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri--referred to the right of the people to "bear arms in defence of themselves and the State." See n. 8, supra. Another three States--Mississippi, Connecticut, and Alabama--used the even more individualistic phrasing that each citizen has the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State." See ibid. Finally, two States--Tennessee and Maine--used the "common defence" language of Massachusetts. See Tenn. Const., Art. XI, §26 (1796), in 6 Thorpe 3414, 3424; Me. Const., Art. I, §16 (1819), in 3 id., at 1646, 1648. That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen's right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. And with one possible exception that we discuss in Part II-D-2, 19th-century courts and commentators interpreted these state constitutional provisions to protect an individual right to use arms for self-defense. See n. 9, supra; Simpson v. State, 5 Yer. 356, 360 (Tenn. 1833).

Why, no Mr. Government, you my not disarm me. Where in the world did anyone get the stupid idea that it was ok to take weapons from us "people"? I really hope that this is the beginning of the end of our matriarical/patriarical, big brother knows best government. We, The People do not need regulating. It is You, The Government that needs regulating! Whatch Obama loose this November because of this issue-- Liberals just do not understand Freedom.

The Conservative Deflator tells us: The introductory clause was completely ignored by Fat Tony Scalia...

Thanks for the gratuitous hyperbole, but... Uh..., NO!

As I illustrated for "Just pointing out...", they actually went to considerable length in consideration of "the prefatory clause"; it's use and it's relationship to "the operative clause" in their decision.

Here's the link to their opinion again:
h_t_t_p_:_/_/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290&friend=usatoday

Examine it at your leisure, and feel free to disagree with it (this IS still America, and we ALSO still enjoy a FIRST Amendment!), but please, in the future, have the integrity to not misrepresent it.

I DO love the "gun control" politicians and talking heads who invariably make it a point to refer to whatever sort of ban or restriction they're advocating today as "reasonable" and/or "common sense" gun control.

Translation: "If you don't agree with my proposals, you're UNreasonable and Have NO Common Sense!"

That's a real "tell-tale" in debating technique, when you try to tell the listener (the ultimate 'judge') which position is "reasonable", implying that the listener isn't smart enough to figure it out for themself without your "guidance".

Supreme Court Shoots Down DC Gun Ban: "Scalia says the issue is hunting, not gun violence."

So, pray tell, what kind of game is there in San Francisco to hunt?

What's good will got to do with an orderly distribution of powers and responsibilities in government? The constitution enumerates 3 and only 3 areas of federal responsibility and the 11th amendment makes that explicit. The court can not and should not ever, no matter what the issue, undermine its own authority by adding a 4th area or jurisdiction to the federal government out of its own head. It has no right to do so and that leads to the promiscuous government that exists in many totalitarian states.

I see another genius has decided to comment on the decision without having read it.
"Scalia says the issue is hunting, not gun violence."

Despite the Headline Hyperbole, Scalia said no such thing, and neither did the majority's decision.

It was the DISSENT that kept arguing "to hunt or not to hunt"...

I didn't know this case was ABOUT San Francisco..?

Anyway, In supporting his gun law the DC mayor had said "The District of Columbia has too many handguns."
He, himself admits that a 30 year-old ban didn't work, so why does he insist that DC should continue to follow a failed policy that leaves it way ahead of the rest of the nation in gun violence? Q:What kind of logic is that??
A: Politician Logic.
WE need to be Smarter than They Are!

Four points:
a) The Constitution is irrelevant on this issue because there are already 20-million handguns in circulation.
The handgun ban being challenged was therefore (as a practical matter) ceremonial.
b) The Supreme Court has lost all dignity when it says that the words "within a well organized militia" have ZERO meaning. According to the majority, those words were added for no reason. ~News flash-- nothing was added to the U.S. Constitution for "no reason". Moreover, these are the same dirt-bag lawyers who spent their early careers complaining about so called Liberal U.S.S.C. justices "legislating from the Bench". What hypocrisy. Simply the single word "well" has its own specific meaning. It meant that one could not circumvent the requirement by forming like a 'social weapons club' or rag-tag 'citizens vigilante committee'.
c) "Keep and bear . . " Even the word "and" has a special definitive meaning. With regard to Capitol Punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court (years ago) ruled that for a punishment to be banned under the Constitution, it must be BOTH 'cruel' AND unusual. Either one condition by itself would not be sufficient. But in the context of "Keep AND bear" the same word "and" has no relevance. If it did, (e.g. if the Supreme Court wanted consistency) it would have had to rule that to own ("keep") a gun, one must also "bear" it or wear it, which daaaaaaaa . . . only makes sense if one thinks in terms of a "well organized militia" (e.g. an army or police force.)
d) Obama is being trashed as "hard left" and "extreme" by the right-wind media for his earlier support of the DC gun ban--when four of the nine S.C. justices agreed with him. More bulljive. Instead of kowtowing to them and flip-flopping, Obama should have simply said: "I disagree with the Majority decision but I will uphold their ruling".

Trollstein sez: The Supreme Court has lost all dignity when it says that the words "within a well organized militia" have ZERO meaning."

NEWS FLASH!!
That phrase Doesn't Appear in the 2nd Amendment!
Maybe you should read the Constitution & the Bill of Rights (including that Second Amendment) followed by the majority's opinion before you undertake to question ANY of it.

Obama is being trashed as "hard left" and "extreme" by the right-wind media for his earlier support of the DC gun ban..
Maybe you'd better throw in his statements from earlier in his Illinois political career, saying that he supported a total ban on the sale and manufacture of ALL handguns in the US. Even "Clinton Bayonet-Ban Queen Hillary" trashed him for that one in the mailings she sent around to rural midwesterners during the primary campaigns, where she pointed that Obama position out specifically, as she asked
Q: "Where does Obama REALLY stand on the 2nd Amendment?"
A: "Depends on who he's talking to."
I know.
I got the mailing.

Excuse you:
Here is the corrected text
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The problem for you is that this contextual shift supports my stated position better and stronger then the earlier paraphrase.

The problem for you is that this contextual shift supports my stated position better and stronger then the earlier paraphrase

Don't think so.

Neither did the majority of the Supreme Court, and neither did the Professors of Linguistics and English who filed Amici Curiae Brief 3, saying, in typical, long-winded professorial fashion, that the prefatory clause simply does NOT place a limit on "The Right of the People". It only explains why the founders thought it advisable to CODIFY that already-existing Right within a written Constitution.

BTW..., if it was a contextual shift then your statement was more than a mere paraphrase (which is simply rewording a statement without changing it's meaning, or context)

Excuse you:
The Second Amend. starts with the core subject. Lets take a few parallel examples:
Yoda:
"Started . . . the Clone Wars have . . . "
The core of the statement then deals with the START of the war. NOT the war itself, which would NOT be news, since all the Jedi knew the future events anyway. They just lacked a firm grasp on exactly WHEN, which WAS news, hence, its prominent position at the beginning of the paragraph.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
~ Winston Churchill.
The core subject is the actions of "a fanatic", NOT any generic person who 'can't change his mind'.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
~ Winston Churchill.
The core subject is the lie, not the pants.
"If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim"
~ Margaret Thatcher
The core subject is again at the lead of the thought. Its about her critics, not the Thames River.

This is not rocket science and I frankly don't care what the Supreme Majority of Cavioteers has to say. They are political hacks and would find some way to rationalize Santa Clause as 'King of the world for Life' if there was a tangible political goal to be had. They are "head lawyers in charge".

Trollstein, stop smoking the Humboldt Country Gold. Me and my boyfriend, we have our guns to protect the crop.

1) The District of Columbia is not a State, as many of you have called it. States have their own rights, and D.C. is a "federal district" (a "city"), and has no representatives in Congress, which has jurisdiction over it. This is a major distinction in many ways between it and the States that comprise the rest of the country.

2) In most of the States, a person can qualify for various classes of firearms permits that allow them to possess (and sell) nearly every type of armament you can think of ... full-auto rifles, bazookas and yes, even tanks. All that is required, in most instances, is documented training and background checks.

It's up to the States how they want to handle firearms possession by their citizens. D.C. was a problem area because it has no States' rights, and so Congress, via the SCOTUS, handed down this decision which primarily and almost exclusively affects D.C. residents. Check with your local State firearms regulatory agency for info on what you can own (and how it must be stored) in your State.

Joyce:
Militant Pot growers?
Red-neck hemp peddlers?
Gorilla Gange' merchantitos?
Too redickaless to contemplate . . .

... I frankly don't care what the Supreme Majority of Cavioteers has to say...

That was obvious.
Only if they'd said "Collective Right" would you have cared.

This is not rocket science..

No, it's English language grammar and usage rules.
So I thought you might have some interest in what Professors of Linguistics and English had to say. You know..., people who have studied English usage and the history of the language for years and years...?
Made a career of it..?
The people who actually KNOW what would comprise a 'parallel example'..?

Apparently you don't care about any of that, either.
You'd rather pull your own "examples" from where the sun don't shine, ignoring all existing English usage rules because.., hey, at least then your examples can seem to support your interpretation (no matter how far from "parallel" they might actually lie!

Excuse you:
Also:
(and this is actually important, unlike my earlier comments--which were mainly for sport)
Were you aware that there is no rule that requires a Supreme Court Justice to have ever attended a day of law school?
Oversight on the part of the "founding patricharcs”
No chance. That being the case, and given that under 0.5% of the US population are lawyers, why are 100% of the Supreme Court Judges entrenched lawyers? Shouldn't it be 99.5% civilians and 0.5% lawyers?
OK, so that may be extreme. But only about 60% of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution were lawyers.
Now, given the "originalist" horse-squat being proffered by the “salient majority", how are they intending to understand what the drafters were thinking--if 40% of the drafters are totally unrepresented on their tribunal?
OK, so 40% representation is also a bit ambitious. What about one. What about one per century?
Fact is that the smartest lawyer in the entire world has a hard time being a smart as an average civilian. Why? Because they are conditioned to take both sides of any argument, thereby bifurcating their intellect into sub-cats of 50% each.
The common man needs support. We are being swallowed down the toilet by a whirlpool of ego and glory driven fables.

"So I thought you might have some interest in what Professors of Linguistics and English had to say."
They interest me only as much as I can assume that professional toadies can be located to support any argument.
The Constitution was not written in Latin, or even in legal jargon. Plain English. Now I ask you, if Gore had been President for the last 8 years and the two appointed S.C.J.s were liberals, what would the chance in hell be that the same 5-4 decision would have been rendered?
I rest my case.

OK kids

consider this.

i believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the USA DOES grant individual citizens the right to "keep and bear" arms.

but no where do i (and i AM a gun(s) owner of longstanding)see any sort of constitutional guarentee to keep and SELL arms.

leave the law abiding gun owner alone and TARGET the individuals who skirt the law for (heavens forbid) the profit motive.

the Supremes have spoken AND i agree. so let the legislators try their voodoo to keep the shady sellers out of the loop.

NRA types and other gun owmers please point out deficiencies in my idea.

BTW: Here is my personal position on the entire controversy.
1. Hand guns and long guns should be legal to own, (not machine guns or assault rifles) and provided that the owner take instruction and pass a competency test (just like driving a car) and~ that they NOT be Dick Cheney.
2. Each legal gun should be data-based by scanning the spent bullet into a national computer (just like finger-prints).
3. States and municipalities should be free to enact local laws which further regulate the possession and use of guns, just the same as states and municipalities can ban alcohol. Residents who don’t like that idea could move to Utah or Kansas.
As far as hunters: I am one of the few vegetarians who have no special gripe with food hunters. I actually think they are intrinsically closer to being vegetarian then the people who shop at Safeway or McDonalds (they just don’t realize it—or do realize it but refuse to admit it).
However, if the states or municipalities need leave to disregard the Supreme Court-Jesters, they can simply ban the bullets, which are NOT constitutionally protected. Since Anton Scalia is all hyped up about his newly developed “originalist” technique, that is to say that he has transposed his thinking back (hundreds of years) and deliberately pre-supposed NOT what the drafters of the constitution SAY but what they must have MEANT, then I say to him. . . Bully old man! Everyone is free to own all the MUSKETS and LEAD-BALLS they like!

Trollstein, this is strange coming from you, who supports those Zionist thugs in Israel. In Israel, there are guns all over that are carried by young, irresponsible people, who shoot Arab children. American taxpayer's should not have billions of dollars of their money sent to Israel to arm them to drop cluster bombs on the Arab children.

This is really an argument of semantics and how one interprets a 'well regulated militia' (why put that in if it somehow refers to individuals?). The gun nuts want guns 'cause, well, they're cool and it gives you a sense of power and some people feel secure and think they'll kill criminals who want to invade their homes and take their precious Redskins memorabilia and possibly rape their obese wife etc. Got it. Yet, the statistics seem to indicate that the American people are pretty irresponsible when it comes to guns (domestic deaths, accidents and of course high rates of homicide). Yes, I say the American people since in neighboring Canada, they don't seem to have the same problems we do (at least scale-wise) and they have puh-lenty of guns.

All of that aside, the most foolish argument of all is the need to bear arms to take down a tyrannical govt. Hell, I'll buy protect yourself in a bad neighborhood even, but protecting yourself from the govt.? This the same govt. that is a superpower military with automatic weapons, grenades, armored troops, tanks and helicopter gunships that can kill you from a mile away? That govt.? Yeah, those handguns and shotguns ain't gonna cut it.

Gotta say though, if say a majority in DC want to ban guns, I'm wondering how this court can tell 'em to go to hell. At the very least, I'd settle for community decisions, such as some counties banning weapons in their area and if you don't like it, don't live there.

At any rate, that whole militia thing, it does strike one as an excuse to arm against the British more than anything else. It's a pesky part of the 2nd amendment as the NRA likes to ignore (note their logo strangely excludes the militia part, curious). Of course when it came time to take the land from the Native Americans further west, well you gotta have guns for that obviously. I mean how do you land from people without weapons? Doh. Finally we arrive at the 20th century and by then guns are so cool (movies, gangsters/gangstas) and so many have 'em and cherish 'em more than people in some cases. What to do? Looks like the rightwing Supremes have made the decision for us, weapons all around! Hooray?

al-Nakba:
No matter what the subject starts out, certain people have no other dialog but to re-direct the subject to Israel and Jews.
News flash:
If not for the strategic value of oil, the world would not give one spit for the Palestinian-Arabs (or any Arabs for that matter). Even with the strategic value of oil, the world barely gives two spits. But two spits is enough to keep the world's Jews in a perpetual state of endibtement--which is partly why the controversy exists in the