The Second Amendment
Right to Bare Arms
"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."
Hey folks,
Why is this big news? Don't worry, we will get to the emails in a second. But seriously, WHY is this big news? The NYTs started it out this way
The 5-4 ruling was the first ever to so directly address the meaning of the Second Amendment’s ambiguous text, but the decision left open the possibility that less restrictive state laws were permissible.
Ambiguous text?
AOl News? Actually the AP?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
Constitutional riddle? Their is NO riddle. There is NOTHING ambiguous about it. It CLEARLY states:
"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."
"A well regulated Militia" Why? COMA, "being necessary to the security of a free State" COMA, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" Two SEPERATE issues. People have the RIGHT to posses and use if necessary, GUNS. Notice here yet another COMA, SHALL NOT BE INFRIGED! Neither the well regulated Militia, NOR the people's RIGHT to bear arms.
If you want to get real about this, those writing the Constitution just got done fighting a CIVIL WAR against a well regulated Militia. They wanted to make sure that people could protect themselves from even this threat.
At least the Washington Post ACTULLY posted some of Justice Scalia's decision. I was going to post the whole thing but it's like 64 pages long. {Smile}
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."
"We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
But this has SHOCKED the LWL. This has driven some Libs off the deep end. I'm not making this up. Google it. This is way to funny. This is big news and some are not happy with it. They TRULY feel that the Supreme Court just gave the people this Right. They feel that the Supreme Court just over turned the Ban in Washington DC and others that will follow. They really didn't. The Constitution DID.
I'm sure that this is not one of those flash in the pan news stories. This is going to be around for a while. They will continue to attempt to strip away your rights or attempt to RE-write the Constitution to fit THEIR opinion of what it SHOULD mean. Congratulations Justice Scalia. Job well done.
Now to the Emails.
Peter
Sources:
NYT-Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
AOL News / AP- High court affirms gun rights in historic decision
The Washington Post - Excerpts from ruling on handgun ban
Right to Bare Arms
"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."Hey folks,
Why is this big news? Don't worry, we will get to the emails in a second. But seriously, WHY is this big news? The NYTs started it out this way
The 5-4 ruling was the first ever to so directly address the meaning of the Second Amendment’s ambiguous text, but the decision left open the possibility that less restrictive state laws were permissible.
Ambiguous text?
AOl News? Actually the AP?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
Constitutional riddle? Their is NO riddle. There is NOTHING ambiguous about it. It CLEARLY states:
"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."
"A well regulated Militia" Why? COMA, "being necessary to the security of a free State" COMA, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" Two SEPERATE issues. People have the RIGHT to posses and use if necessary, GUNS. Notice here yet another COMA, SHALL NOT BE INFRIGED! Neither the well regulated Militia, NOR the people's RIGHT to bear arms.
If you want to get real about this, those writing the Constitution just got done fighting a CIVIL WAR against a well regulated Militia. They wanted to make sure that people could protect themselves from even this threat.
At least the Washington Post ACTULLY posted some of Justice Scalia's decision. I was going to post the whole thing but it's like 64 pages long. {Smile}"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."
"We must also address the District's requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
But this has SHOCKED the LWL. This has driven some Libs off the deep end. I'm not making this up. Google it. This is way to funny. This is big news and some are not happy with it. They TRULY feel that the Supreme Court just gave the people this Right. They feel that the Supreme Court just over turned the Ban in Washington DC and others that will follow. They really didn't. The Constitution DID.
I'm sure that this is not one of those flash in the pan news stories. This is going to be around for a while. They will continue to attempt to strip away your rights or attempt to RE-write the Constitution to fit THEIR opinion of what it SHOULD mean. Congratulations Justice Scalia. Job well done.
Now to the Emails.
Peter
Sources:
NYT-Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
AOL News / AP- High court affirms gun rights in historic decision
The Washington Post - Excerpts from ruling on handgun ban
2 comments:
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."
A lot of disareement on this one; it is argued that it refers to regulated militia only, however in those days the militia was the people, not any standing army or police force.
I lived in D.C. for 20 years; trust me you want to own a gun.
{LOL}
Their are a lot of Politicians in Was,,, oh wait,, was that,,never mind. {Smile}
It is pretty clear. The COMA between the militia and the people indicate TWO different Rights. I'm glad the Supreme Court upheld that.
Peter
Post a Comment