U.S. Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment Started today

[NoStateofMind]

Supreme Court Revisits Second Amendment

(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

Waste of taxpayer dollars & waste of time IMO. The bad side of lawyers comes out in this case for even trying to imply that the 2nd Amendment is a group (militia) Right and not an individual one.

It seems this is just semantics of law as seen here:

Wiki - 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
? 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 original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
? 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. ?

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.

Commas

There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," or after the phrase "to keep and bear arms." Different versions of the Amendment appear in various U.S. government documents.

Grammar

The Second Amendment is formed with an opening phrase, followed by a declarative clause. The opening phrase is known to grammarians as an ablative absolute construction. The significance of this grammar was certainly understood to the framers who were more schooled in Latin grammar than is common in modern times.[12] This was a grammar structure that was common during that era.[13]

You decide.

 

[FoBoT]

the article i read made it sound like this was going to be a slam dunk to strike down the law, either 5-4 or 6-3 :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Those assholes overthrew the President of the United States but they're not stupid enough to overthrow gun ownership. Their lives would be at risk.

 

[K1052]

The court is almost assuredly going to affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right subject to certain (limited) restrictions.

The question is how will they view the DC gun ban in that context (reasonable or unreasonable). Hopefully they strike it down as municipal handgun bans are woefully ineffective at preventing gun violence and intrude on the right of the people.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: K1052
The court is almost assuredly going to affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right subject to certain (limited) restrictions.

The question is how will they view the DC gun ban in that context (reasonable or unreasonable). Hopefully they strike it down as municipal handgun bans are woefully ineffective at preventing gun violence and intrude on the right of the people.

I must have missed where they outlined the lawful mechanism whereby individuals can register their militia, and thus lawfully acquire firearms in DC. Maybe I should ask the KKK. They seem pretty organized.

 

[leingod86]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052
The court is almost assuredly going to affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right subject to certain (limited) restrictions.

The question is how will they view the DC gun ban in that context (reasonable or unreasonable). Hopefully they strike it down as municipal handgun bans are woefully ineffective at preventing gun violence and intrude on the right of the people.

I must have missed where they outlined the lawful mechanism whereby individuals can register their militia, and thus lawfully acquire firearms in DC. Maybe I should ask the KKK. They seem pretty organized.

Here probably:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...ch.pl?title=10&sec=311

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: K1052
The court is almost assuredly going to affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right subject to certain (limited) restrictions.

The question is how will they view the DC gun ban in that context (reasonable or unreasonable). Hopefully they strike it down as municipal handgun bans are woefully ineffective at preventing gun violence and intrude on the right of the people.

Are you suggesting that the handgun-free DC has abnormal levels of crime?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: K1052
The court is almost assuredly going to affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right subject to certain (limited) restrictions.

The question is how will they view the DC gun ban in that context (reasonable or unreasonable). Hopefully they strike it down as municipal handgun bans are woefully ineffective at preventing gun violence and intrude on the right of the people.

DC is already scrambling to ban guns under other statutes that are less closely related to Constitutional amendments.. (dangerous chemicals, dangerous materials, etc)

I'm serious... they're all worried that this decision will literally destroy their city, so they WILL try an end-around with the laws once their case is defeated. There as an article on this very point in today's Washington Times... (I'm too lazy to link it for you..lol)

 

[smack Down]

Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot for the tenth time?

fixed

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

You never made any argument based on the Constitution that would allow limiting military weapons when clearly that is protected.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

You never made any argument based on the Constitution that would allow limiting military weapons when clearly that is protected.

Supreme court justices disagree with you

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

You never made any argument based on the Constitution that would allow limiting military weapons when clearly that is protected.

Yes, I have. Many many times.

"Arms" are what a soldier can theoretically provide by himself and carry onto the battlefield in his own 2 hands.

A "terrorist" is a criminal. A criminal can be denied the right to bear arms under any possible interpretation of the 5th amendment.

And on a side note, I find it ironic that you're all too willing to use the terrorists with WMD card.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot for the twentieth time?

fixed

Finance and planes + treadmills FTL!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

You never made any argument based on the Constitution that would allow limiting military weapons when clearly that is protected.

Supreme court justices disagree with you

They didn't get into military style weapons or if they did your articles doesn't talk about them. Any reading that bans military weapons is as equally dishonest as a ready banning all guns. The intent of the second is so that a person or people could if they choose defend their home and country from threats. The Ak 47 is the main weapon of all most all citizens arms around the world.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Vic


Yes, I have. Many many times.

"Arms" are what a soldier can theoretically provide by himself and carry onto the battlefield in his own 2 hands.

A "terrorist" is a criminal. A criminal can be denied the right to bear arms under any possible interpretation of the 5th amendment.

And on a side note, I find it ironic that you're all too willing to use the terrorists with WMD card.

In your opinion, would crew-served weapons be covered by the 2nd, presuming they were man portable?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic


Yes, I have. Many many times.

"Arms" are what a soldier can theoretically provide by himself and carry onto the battlefield in his own 2 hands.

A "terrorist" is a criminal. A criminal can be denied the right to bear arms under any possible interpretation of the 5th amendment.

And on a side note, I find it ironic that you're all too willing to use the terrorists with WMD card.

A "terrorist" is a criminal. Only after they have been convicted.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down
Woot soon terrorist will be able to walk around with AK 47s.

Isn't that what they are claiming the second says. People have the right to keep and bear arms? Terrorist are people and AK 47s are arms?

We already had this discussion months ago. Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot for the twentieth time?

fixed

Finance and planes + treadmills FTL!

hah!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1
In your opinion, would crew-served weapons be covered by the 2nd, presuming they were man portable?

No. Arms are weapons that a militia soldier would have been expected to provide his own, and carry on to the battlefield and operate all by himself. In other words, a rifle, pistol, sword, knife, etc.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down


A "terrorist" is a criminal. Only after they have been convicted.

Well yeah, because prior to committing any actual crime, they're just a political protester exercising their free expression rights.

"Innocent until proven guilty," remember?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic


Well yeah, because prior to committing any actual crime, they're just a political protester exercising their free expression rights.

"Innocent until proven guilty," remember?

Right which is why I don't think Gun ownership should be a right.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down


Right which is why I don't think Gun ownership should be a right.

So you want us to all be considered guilty until proven innocent?

The right to defend oneself is an inherent right. Nobody's opinion can take that away. And especially not your fear of phantom terrorists with WMD's.