IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights

Quest
post Mar 18 2008, 11:07 AM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights
By Warren Richey
Tue Mar 18, 4:00 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080318/ts_csm/aguns

Washington - The Second Amendment guarantees a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." What that means exactly has been a source of intense debate that stretches back to America's founding.

Some legal scholars believe the amendment protects a right to keep and bear only those firearms that are necessary for ongoing service in a state militia. Other equally distinguished scholars hold the view that the amendment guarantees individual Americans the right to possess and use firearms, even when the guns are not related to service in a militia.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a potential landmark case that could settle the question once and for all.

The high court last addressed the issue almost 70 years ago in a case called US v. Miller. But that decision left the debate unresolved.

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has been marked by a surprising lack of clear and decisive action on the Second Amendment. As a result, many of the legal briefs in the current case instead of emphasizing prior decisions of the high court offer competing versions of American history, focusing on the debates, writings, and experiences of the nation's founding era.

An unprecedented case
It presents what Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett calls a "clean case."

"There is really no precedent standing in the way of the court enforcing the original meaning of this provision," Professor Barnett told reporters recently. "That's what makes this a historic case. That's what makes it a case that none of us have probably witnessed in our lifetime and may never witness again."

But that's also what makes it unpredictable, according to other analysts.

"We have no track record on any of this," says John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who embraces the militia-service view.

The justices must decide what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote and approved these words: "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."

In addition to settling a historic debate, how the high court reads those words will hold important implications for the constitutionality of gun control measures across the US. It could also inject the fiery issue of guns into the 2008 campaigns for president and Congress.

The debate over gun rights and gun-control exists at a major fault line in American political culture. One side views guns as a threat to public safety; the other views them as a protection of personal safety and national liberty.

Specifically at issue before the court in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is the constitutionality of a ban on handguns and other gun-control measures enacted 32 years ago in Washington, D.C.

Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer at the Federal Judicial Center, wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington home for self-defense. But the city government refused to issue him a permit, citing the city's stringent gun laws.

Mr. Heller sued in early 2003, charging that the handgun ban and other measures violated his Second Amendment right.

A federal judge threw the case out in March 2004, ruling that since Heller was not a member of a militia he had no constitutional right to firearms. But that judgment was reversed 2 to 1 last year by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeals court found that the right to arms established in the Second Amendment is broader than a narrow link to a militia.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the city argue that the Second Amendment protects only militia-related firearms rights, not the personal use and possession of firearms. The city's lawyers say the first clause of the amendment limits the scope of the entire amendment.

Lawyers for Heller disagree. They characterize the amendment's first clause as a preamble to the rights-securing language in the second clause. "The preamble cannot contradict or render meaningless the operative text," writes Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura, in his brief to the court.

In the Constitution, when the framers refer to "the people," they are discussing individual rights, Mr. Gura says. By conferring a right to "keep" arms, the people thereby enjoy a right to have arms in their homes and use them for personal protection, he says.

Lawyers for the District of Columbia say the Second Amendment was not written to create an armed populace. It was designed to address concerns about national power to arm or disarm the state militias. "The amendment prevents Congress from interfering with the right of the people of each state to arm a well-regulated militia composed not of professional soldiers, but of the people themselves," writes Todd Kim, solicitor general of the District of Columbia, in his brief to the court.

Other gun laws may be affected
District of Columbia v. Heller requires the high court to confront a series of questions. First, what kind of right does the Second Amendment secure, a collective, militia-related right or an individual right?

Second, if it secures an individual right, is that right violated by a handgun ban and other strict gun-control measures such as those enacted in Washington?

To answer the latter question the high court would have to decide what level of constitutional scrutiny to apply to the city's gun-control laws. Will they use the strict scrutiny applied to protect the free speech rights of the First Amendment and other fundamental rights? Or will they use the lower level of scrutiny generally applied against government regulations?

This is the aspect of the case that could jeopardize gun-control measures in other parts of the country.

Some analysts say that even if a majority of justices rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, their ruling will not necessarily undercut most existing gun-control laws.

A similar handgun ban in Chicago would probably be unconstitutional, they say, but widely adopted gun-control measures like background checks and machine gun restrictions would most likely survive.

"The issues in this case are not about eliminating all reasonable restrictions on firearms," says Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who authored a friend of the court brief on behalf of Texas and 30 other states urging the high court to strike down the handgun ban.

"Instead, they are about does the Second Amendment protect a real right," he says. A decision in the case is expected by late June.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 18 2008, 11:07 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



The DC Case and some History:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...c=3046&st=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 19 2008, 12:40 AM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



The decision against the individual right to bear arms would be a nonsense - because the Supreme court would probably never decide against the 500+ milions of the (loaded) guns - or of course the judges in there would cease to exist... Even in case Sibel Edmonds vs. FBI (a 1st Amendment case decided against the Constitution) it showed that she doesn't care what is the Supreme court decision - because the decision is legaly void - and speaked out.
The 2nd Amendment is clear- "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - by anybody - if the president would issue an executive order to abolish it - then is out - implicite impeachment... if the Court would decide against the 2nd Amend then is out - booth according 14th Amend sec. 3 "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I beg you Americans, this is your superior law - please lump it and use it if needed. The declaration of Independence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 19 2008, 12:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 19 2008, 10:59 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



I agree! The right to bear arms is the cornerstone of our rights as Americans, and if this is taken away by this Supreme Court we will know who they are loyal to, and it won't be the American people.

They MUST get this right!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 19 2008, 07:47 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



Listen to Oral Arguments in the Case:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2...7_290/argument/

This post has been edited by jo56: Mar 19 2008, 07:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 19 2008, 08:54 PM
Post #6





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Thank you Jo, you are awesome !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 19 2008, 09:55 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It's hard to believe that the early reports say the Folks In Black are leaning towards the traditional interpretation of individual rights. Hope it holds....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 19 2008, 10:19 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



Gura is young, but he sounds very smart.

You can get a feel for how the justices may lean in their opinions by listening to their comments and questions in oral arguments.

I can't think of a more significant Supreme Court case in my lifetime, so I will be paying attention to this one. It's nice that they have a place where the peons can listen to the proceedings. smile.gif

cheers.gif

This post has been edited by jo56: Mar 19 2008, 10:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 20 2008, 02:37 AM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (jo56 @ Mar 17 2008, 10:47 PM) *

Thank you jo56 for the link

I took the hour and half (because I find the case be really very important for the Americans and the future of freedom as you do) and I was listening thoroughly the whole disputation in the Supreme Court.

I don't have a gun. I'm an European and I even live in a state which wouldn't allow to freely keep and bear arms or to form a militia, so I have only my word, that's my only defense against that what seems to be happening.

I guess I have an important note:
They disputed all the words in the 2nd Amendment and many aspects and possible meanings of the words from elsewhere, machine guns, handguns, armor piercing bullets (and various laws and regulations, sometimes apparently irrelevant in the sense when one have to decide the case according to the US Constitution as the superior law the US Supreme Court IMHO have no right to contradict in its judgments, nor duty to follow any precedents or laws except the US Constitution they've the judges taken the oath to defend), but they have "forgotten" the main one - as it would be a big taboo - they absolutely avoided the word free - its meaning in the 2nd Amendment (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.)

To explain what I mean, I'll try to describe how I understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the context of the US Constitutional law by my own words (I'll borrow some):

Because there is a constant danger a state, its government, could develop into tyranny rendering the state and its constituents unfree, the people's right to keep and bear the arms generally (Not just to form the militia) should not be infringed - because the people can defend the freedom only if they are constantly armed and continuously form a real threat to possible tyrants (foreign or domestic) to take them down - if needed even by using the armed force - in case the tyrants would infringe, abridge or dissolve their inalienable rights and freedoms, pursuing invariably the same Object evincing a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.(I'm borrowing this from the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

That's IMHO why it is written in the Bill of Rights not in a law about arms - it's the right to posses the effective means to defend the "free State" (which is constituted by its people, having a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed - the people), not a right to posses the gun for an undefined reason - it is not just about the right to form a militia, it is about the purpose of the militia AND the very purpose of having a right to keep and bear the arms - to have the effective means to defend a state's freedom - it is IMHO the true purpose of the right established in the 2nd Amendment. That's the meaning of the 2nd Amendment - as I understand it - and from my point of view certainly exactly this purpose was the true original meaning in whole the context of the history of the formation and foundation of USA - to form a free state and the effective means to defend its freedom - and the main reason why the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified.

Many aspects - even very subsidiary were disputed in the Supreme Court at the hearing - but one can't find a clear word about this 2nd Amendment's key word "free" in the Supreme Court disputation. So I think IMHO your Supreme Court fully avoided the main question about the true general purpose of the 2nd Amendment in whole context of the US Constitutional law - to secure the "security of a free State" - for which a fulfillment the uninfringeable right to keep and bear the arms was established - and thus I think the Court didn't qualified the merit of the case - to be able to decide the case in a just manner and according the true meaning of the Constitution and the instruments of its just and effective defense.

I repeat, I'm a poor European, not an American, I'm not directly involved. But last more than 10 years - when thoroughly studying the nature of the terrorism and totalitarianism (it's what I'm post graduated from) - trying to use my brain to help to find the truth and to defend the freedom - I've also studied the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and their meaning. - Because the freedom in US I find being a key of the freedom in the whole the world. And I find the US Constitution being something of the very best what was in the history of mankind founded and invented to prevent the governments become the despocies.

I don't want to push anything, or to make prophecies., I just let myself to be inspired by the wisdom. It's not about me - you should decide - but because I'm afraid, that if the case would be decided against Mr. Heller (as it looks from the disputation - because of not even mentioning the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment, its key word and the basic merit of the respective case) - it would be one of the last straws - an outrageous precedent - in the train of the abuses and usurpations to strip you from the fundamental rights and freedoms, moreover to strip you from the real power to effectively defend them and yourself, I feel the duty to speak this my opinions out even it might seem preposterous and vain.

Please think about it. And if you find my point right, if you understand what I mean, if you feel the danger as I do, please spread the word - possibly send it to a US Supreme Court judge of your choice, or to Mr. Allan Gura who speaks on behalf of Mr. Heller (it would look weird if a foreigner would appeal the US Supreme Court case) - because here IMHO it is about the very defense of the Freedom (I don't find a better parable: about the defense of its spirit as well as the "immunity system" - some people in D.C. want to take down - as an AIDS or like does in the body) - about one of the very basic rights explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable, the other two - the Life and the pursuit of Happiness - are indefensible without. I don't want to be a pathetic, but I've strong feeling, that it is now going about the Freedom, Life and Happiness of us all - whether the Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians or Australians. You are the last Nation formed on the face of the Earth, the most progressive one at least in the prudence with which the foundations of your Constitution were written and pushed through in the painstaking process of the ratification by the founding fathers, appealing the Supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions. Please don't let this great legacy be destroyed.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 20 2008, 09:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 20 2008, 12:57 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



tume,

How astute of you to notice that the word "Free" wasn't included in these oral arguments. I will have to look through them once again, but I don't think it was used at all either. The stunning thing about this case even getting to the Supreme Court, is that IT SHOULDN'T HAVE. I heard one person talking about how the MILLER vs. USA case totally messed with the 2nd amendment and twisted its meaning; and this is the current only precedent the current case has? Go figure! It appears that the Miller case may have been INTENTIONALLY left with a QUESTION MARK AT THE END, to give the current supreme court another run at our 2nd Amendment????? The Miller case left the court thinking that this was a militia right, and not an Individual Right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...7&invol=174

I'm also amazed that you have even more of an interest in our Constitution, than most of our own people. This shows how smart you are, and how complacent and stunned many of us are. It's like the people of my country are ASLEEP to the dangers all around them, and take their "FREEDOM" for granted as if nothing could ever happen to it. THIS IS A DANGEROUS POSITION FOR ANYONE TO TAKE - AMERICA, DO YOU HEAR THIS?

I was also amazed that 80 (I think Justice Breyer said) briefs were submitted to the court on this case, coming from various groups in our society. Thankfully there are more on the side of the Respondent (Heller) who believes it is an Individual Right.

There is much to this case that is intriguing, but also much that must be scrutinized. THIS IS ABOUT A VERY SACRED FREEDOM THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD - our 2nd Amendment Rights.

I hope you will all watch this case, and then find out which side your Congressman is on. Briefs were submitted from both sides of the aisle, which means SOME CONGRESSMEN AREN'T FOR YOUR 2nd amendment rights to own a gun for self-defense.

Thx tume, even though you're not American, for CARING ENOUGH TO BE ENGAGED IN THIS CONVERSATION. WISH MORE AMERICANS WOULD BE. thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by jo56: Mar 20 2008, 06:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 20 2008, 05:26 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Thanks jo56 for the post,
I must go through the Miller case to find out exactly how it came to that "militia is military" (isn't militia something fundamentaly else than an army in general?). For now I made an article from my above text and have posted it to 911blogger ( http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/14448 ), that's what I as a foreigner can do. It's mostly up to Americans to know their rights and duties.

It's interesting, that the DC vs. Heller has some coverage even in the local press in Europe - which is quite unusual for a Supreme court case which barely has begun. I think it further confirms how important the case is. - for both sides.

It's sad that there is whole the faction, mainly from the side of the democratic party which long time wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment provisions even using the laws, and not just that - If you've time please have a look at the other text I wrote about what I feel is happening with US Constitution: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10734575

I've also written a short adendum:

The right to the freedom is unalienable:

According to the Declaration of Independence the right to the freedom is unalienable. In scope of the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment means IMO, that it provides the explicite unimfringeable right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of necessity to secure the free State and such a right is unalienable because it is the exercise of the said right to freedom - which means nor the US Congress nor the US Supreme Court nor the US President have any right to abridge the right to keep and bear the arms, because the right to freedom would be then effectively alienated.
All governments, either elected or not, could alienate the basic rights of the people and act against the consent of the people (we see throughout the all history even the most recent one) - it is the unchangeable principle of power of the elites and its nature - if it happens just transiently (always justified by something), then it is usualy sufferable even it is a evil, but if a decisive political faction repeatedly tries to introduce a law or judication which would do so in a legal sense - one could consider it intended be untransient and intentional, evincing a design, then the right and duty expressed in the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence (<i>"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security</i>should be fulfilled - its natural too.
The difference between the wolf and sheep is, that the wolf has the fangs and can always kill the sheep and not vice versa. And either the "homo homini lupus" ("man [is a] wolf to man") is true or not, it is not good for the people to be the sheeps if there apparently are wolves among them. Its better to be the people and fulfill the duty, when the wolves - which normaly just maintains the sanity of the nature - become undiscernable from the sheeps and form a beast putting too many fences in the meadows pretending it maintains the security of the herds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 20 2008, 06:05 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



I'm not an expert by any means on this issue. I just think it's very important that Americans know what is going on. That said, I find your comments quite informed and the way I understand the 2nd Amendment. In all of my days I've always taken it to mean "individual rights". Look at the Revolution, this is what it was all about. This should not even be a question and before the SUPREME COURT IMO.

This is what General Clement said in his oral arguments in the audio:

QUOTE
"if the Second Amendment had the meaning that DC ascribes to it, one would certainly think that James Madison when he proposed the 2nd Amendment would have proposed it as an amendment to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

HE DIDN'T. He proposed it as an amendment to Article I. Section 9, WHICH ENCAPSULATES THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to be free from bills of retainder and ex post facto clauses.


This case presents all kinds of red flags to me, when you see it along with the full picture of all the other things that are happening in America. IMO all of this is about crippling our Constitution to the point we can then be formed into the North American Union, and eventually into a One World Govt down the road. Technically, our gun rights and our Constitution is what stands in the way of all of this happening. So, this IMO is why they are attacking these areas.

It is vital that Americans follow this and start inquiring as to where their Congressmen stand. Some American's Congressmen are on the WRONG side of this issue, and they must be EXPOSED for supporting the BRIEF THAT SUPPORTED THE DC VIEW. GIVE THEM A CALL, AND ASK THEIR VIEWS ON THE DC CASE.

Just my opinion!

This post has been edited by jo56: Mar 20 2008, 06:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 20 2008, 07:02 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



I just took a look at your post in The Most Wonderful Documents thread. All I can say is WOW! THIS GUY GETS IT AND HE'S NOT EVEN AMERICAN. smile.gif I think it's great that you studied our Constitution. Wish our own people were as diligent.

I thought it was interesting when you said the following:

QUOTE
It's ironical, because Bush came to office solely thanks to the use of the 14th Amendment Section 1 in the Supreme court case Bush v. Gore - so nobody could say the 14th Amendment is invalid ...


It will be interesting to see what you think of the Miller decision. Notify me if you post anything on that topic once you've read it. I would love to read your thoughts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 20 2008, 11:04 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



TTT

A fantastic series of posts! And excellent perspective from a European, from whence so many of us derive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2008, 09:31 AM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (jo56 @ Mar 18 2008, 09:05 PM) *
I'm not an expert by any means on this issue. I just think it's very important that Americans know what is going on. That said, I find your comments quite informed and the way I understand the 2nd Amendment. In all of my days I've always taken it to mean "individual rights". Look at the Revolution, this is what it was all about. This should not even be a question and before the SUPREME COURT IMO.

This is what General Clement said in his oral arguments in the audio:



This case presents all kinds of red flags to me, when you see it along with the full picture of all the other things that are happening in America. IMO all of this is about crippling our Constitution to the point we can then be formed into the North American Union, and eventually into a One World Govt down the road. Technically, our gun rights and our Constitution is what stands in the way of all of this happening. So, this IMO is why they are attacking these areas.

It is vital that Americans follow this and start inquiring as to where their Congressmen stand. Some American's Congressmen are on the WRONG side of this issue, and they must be EXPOSED for supporting the BRIEF THAT SUPPORTED THE DC VIEW. GIVE THEM A CALL, AND ASK THEIR VIEWS ON THE DC CASE.

Just my opinion!

Yes, what I write are just my opinions, moreover the opinions of somebody very distant from the everyday reality in US. I'm also not a legal expert, I'm just using the common sense to find out what's going on, because since 9/11 I feel many things are stinking quite a lot.
I was looking through the Miller case and to me it seems to be more a litigation about whether the National firearms Act is in accord with the 2nd Amendment or not that it requires the registration of some special shotguns. But in fact there is nothing what would support or argue the Supreme court ruled the objection out. Simply - nothing. It realy looks more like they squezed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to be only aplicable to militia and again ommiting the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment right-to-keep-and-bear-arms -> to secure free State.
In all honesty I didn't caught the point of the case - there are loads of citations of what militia here, what militia there, but no trace of the interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means in general.
I moreover think, that the Heller case is much different from that of Miller - the Miller case as I uderstand it was about whether there was a Firearms Act violation when he had a special shotgun unregistered resp. if the Firearms Act is in accord with the 2nd Amendment, while the Heller case is about whether the US citizen has the right to have a legal weapon to defend himself at all - where the DC maintains - that becase it is dangerous in the city such a right should be abolished by the local legislation - asking the Supreme court to confirm it and remand the previous judgments of courts they maintained the case in favor of Heller.
I think it shouldn't be abolished because of that direct connection between the unalienable right to freedom and the effective measures to maintain it through the right to keep and bear arms whose purpose is clearly to "secure a free State" whether using a militia or not - anyway the Heller and anybody would hardly fight for freedom alone - it would be always some form of militia doing it - if something like that would happen in the future - and if the Heller then wouldn't have a gun (because his district banned him and other to have one) then from the logic they couldn't form any militia at all - because a militia without guns... doh1.gif ...and thus the right to freedom (to secure a free State) would be both de jure and de facto alienated.

I also see many red flags in the recent development all looks to be stemming into a totalitarian state. It is not just the gun control (there are also the numerous "martial law" Acts ) but I find it crucial because 1. the right to keep and bear arm is the mean to maintain freedom 2. if they would introduce a gun control it can lead to a large scale of consequences beginning with the unwaranted searches for guns and ending with a total disarmament of the people with all side effects.
I don't idealize the US - there are many absurdities going on for long time and especially after WWII - but there is also that good legacy of the Constitution which I feel (mostly in purely idealist sense) being a good system of checks and ballances in sense of western civilization - and it should be preserved. The Constitution is an ideal, it is nothing what could be formed just by when some wise guys write some articles on the paper and that's it. The history of USA as I see it from the distant Europe is for most of the time a history of a continuous struggle to make that ideal real. So if some political factions want to reverse this development, the people should stop them also because it would be a negation of the legacy of their ancestors they struggled for the freedom to make the Constitution a reality.
It's sad for example to see what became from the republican party in the recent history - where are all that ideals now? If one see that Ron Paul being only one presidential candidate who maintains it - getting blacked out, and then all the other CFR guys mostly utterly contradict it - getting wide coverage - it looks to me the all publicity in US is infiltrated to promote that "NWO" (used first time by Hitler). It's sad to see so many Americans being confused about their rights and for example preach tha Michael More propaganda of Bowling for Columbine and like as if they would like to persuade themselves that isolated incidents of a local violence should be generalized for all - if 1. the Columbine that were in fact children who did it and 2. there are rumors that such incidents are a part of the gun control propaganda. Where it can all lead?

About that General Clement quote - yes, for me it's logical that keep and bear arms should be classified as an individual right - at least anyway I can't imagine how an weapon would be beared by something else than an individual, maybe some heavy machine guns must be carried by more than one, but a pistol or a riflle? dunno.gif Also if someone considers "bear" having a meaning "take responsibility of" it is the same - again only individual can take a responsibility. And that "keep" - it means not only to "store", but also "maintain functionality" and again only individuals who know what to do can do something like that. Oh, maybe this are the trivialities, let me know if you find it childish.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Mar 21 2008, 10:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 21 2008, 09:36 AM
Post #16





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



The second amendment is always argued about guns

but note that it says 'arms'

when the constitution was written swords bayonettes, spears and knives were also considered 'arms'

in England and most of Europe serfs were not allowed to have swords or pointed knives
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 21 2008, 11:39 AM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 19 2008, 12:36 PM) *
The second amendment is always argued about guns

but note that it says 'arms'

when the constitution was written swords bayonettes, spears and knives were also considered 'arms'

in England and most of Europe serfs were not allowed to have swords or pointed knives

Yes that's true that it is argued about guns, I think because in time when the gun is prevalent hand weapon you would probably mostly not be succesful in defense with a knife against the gun. Also the Heller's case discussed here is about whether he can or can't have and bear a gun for his defense resp. if the DC can ban guns.

About that times of serfs - I think in that time still the knives, spears, swords and stuff would be useful in the rebelion, today it would be quite laughable if the people would come in DC with it (because banned to have a gun) for example to take down the overcorrupted government - I bet that in such a case they would be back like the serfs and even there would be the crowds of them they would be easily defeatable with a couple of machineguns. But if they would come there with the guns, no army, no police possibly would be so big to defeat them. - if there still is this threat then the govt. must not be at least corrupt absolutely and openly as it was (not just) in the times of feudalism in Europe. Still - in wast majority of Europe there is a gun control just in Switzerland is the militia prevailing type of armed forces. For instance Switzerland also is one of the oldest democracies in Europe and is only country which still is resisting to enter the EU...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 21 2008, 01:03 PM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



Wayne LaPierre, NRA Vice President is the person I saw on Glenn Beck who was saying how the Miller Decision was twisted into a COLLECTIVE RIGHT versus what we've always know it to be - AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Wanted to tell you who the person was that said that (I referred to it above)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 21 2008, 01:06 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



Brief Filed by MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CHENEY. They support the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT view of 2nd Amendment & Heller:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/07_290bco...icus_heller.pdf
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10594
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3451


IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN'S NAME IS NOT ON THIS LIST, YOU NEED TO BE CALLING THEM DAILY UNTIL THEY EXPLAIN WHY IT ISN'T.

WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF LAME CONGRESSMEN WHO DON'T SUPPORT THIS COUNTRY. IT'S TIME FOR THESE MEN AND WOMEN (THE ONES NOT ON THIS LIST) TO LOSE THEIR JOBS IN CONGRESS BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENT THEY DON'T SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION IF THEY DON'T KNOW THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS ABOUT AN "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" (STARTING NOV 2008).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWO VERY OBVIOUS NAMES NOT ON THIS LIST SUPPORTING THE "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" POSITION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT ARE 2 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:

1) Hillary Clinton

2) Barack Obama


IF YOU WANT ONE GOOD REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR THESE TWO PEOPLE, YOU HAVE IT. THEY DON'T SEEM TO THINK YOU HAVE "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" WITH REGARD TO THE 2nd AMENDMENT?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER OBSERVATION AFTER GOING THROUGH THE LIST OF CONGRESS AND COMPARING TO THIS LIST:

THERE ARE 5 STATES NOT REPRESENTED ON THIS LIST AT ALL: (None of these Congressmen show they support "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" in 2nd Amendment?)

1) DELAWARE

2) HAWAII

3) MASSACHUSETTS

4) RHODE ISLAND

5) VERMONT


This post has been edited by jo56: Mar 21 2008, 02:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jo56
post Mar 21 2008, 05:31 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 321



NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre Speaks at CPAC (part 1)





NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre Speaks at CPAC (part 2)



NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre Speaks at CPAC (part 3)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th January 2020 - 01:01 AM