US Supremem Court Case on Private Gun Rights

[Fern]

(Mods, I understand we have another thread on this case, but most discussion there is primarily on tangentially related issues such societal impacts, crime statistics, discussion of assualt rifle -which are not even addressed in this case-, and other sorts of miscellania unrelated to any discussion of legal priciples involve in this SCOTUS case.

This case will certaintly generate much legal thinking from many quarters, and arguements before the court won't start until March and is not expected to be ruled upon until June or July. So there should much legal-type discussion over the coming months. Perhaps this thread can serve for such discussion as may periodically arise. - I.e., long lasting thread like one of Dave's )
-----------------------------------------------

Please Limit discussion to legal type thinking/discussion. There is another thread to discuss crime, types of guns, statistics and other tangentialy related matters.

For those interested more in the legal technicalites of the Heller case I intend to revist and augment this thread with information on the two past SCOTUS cases setting precident in the area of 2nd Amendment gun rights, the Heller case itself, and legal commentary sure to develop.


Cases

Heller Case. Filing by the DC Government to the SCOTUS

Miller Opinion by SCOTUS

Commentary on Cases

Commentary on Miller Case

Commentary on Heller and Developments of Private Gun ownership Viewpoint of Fed Gov Leading to It

Wiki Discussion of Miller Case

Current Articles on Heller & 2nd Amendment etc

Article by Robert A. Levy a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute

Washington Post Article


Here is the way the Court phrased the issue in Heller:

?Whether the following provisions ? D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 ? violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

Well, they were expected rule on the question of whether the 2nd provides for an individual right as opposed to only a collective right.

But the phrasing seems to implicitly acknowledge such a right, and strikes me as indicating that they are really going to rule on whether the restrictions in questions are too severe. I suppose if that's the case the individual right would finally be affirmed.

The phrasing also strikes me a bit redundant as it mentions that Heller is not in a militia AND the gun is for personal use. In the context of the 2nd, it would seem clear that if it's not militia related it could only be personal, thus no reason to mention it?

But the court doesn't deal in redundancy, perhaps the phrasing acknowledges he's an armed security guard and his gun possession is unrelated to work? But that doesn't seem correct as AFAIK there is no Constitutional right by virtue of employment which would eem to be the implication under that explanaition for the apparent reduncy.

In the Miller case, the SCOTUS ruled no right to possession of a sawed-off shotgun as it was not normally employed in militia type use. I suppose a side-arm (handgun) is? But that seems irrelevant because the phrasing indicates preclusion of any militia related purpose.

If they uphold a right to personal gun use will Miller be overturned? A shotgun is comonly used for personal use/ home defense. Will they get around/ignore Miller because this deals with a handgun?

Frankly I'm not sure what to think other than this case will come to "guidelines" on states retrictions of personal possession of guns, and perhaps the implicit or explicit affirmation or rejection of the individual rights view of the 2nd.

IMO, it would be a unique and monumental decision to reject any individual right under the 2nd. To deeply ingrained in history & society. They rarely if ever do such a thing.

This court historically tends to move at a glacially incremental pace. Will this be different?

I'll need to think and read futher. The way they've framed the case really puzzles me.

Fern

 

[Fern]

From the above link on the Gov viewpoint of private gun ownership:

More than five years ago, on May 6, 2002, the U.S. government told the Supreme Court ? for the first time ? that it had changed its decades-long position on gun rights. In footnotes dropped into two documents urging the Court not to hear two Second Amendment cases, the U.S. Solicitor General (then Theodore B. Olson) formally put before the Justices the government?s new support for an individual right to have guns for private use.

The footnote recalled that the government had previously argued in court filings that the Second Amendment ?protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia.? But it then added: ?The current policy of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any military or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse.?

I did not realize that our Fed gov opposed private gun ownership, only to change it's position in 2002. As a believer in both collective and indiviual rights under the 2nd this alarms me. I supose that's one thing I thank GWB & the neocons for.

Likely we'll get briefs from the gov in this case supporting the individual rights viewpoint. Will interestig to see what Mukasey can do. I suppose he'll be responsible for drafting it.

Fern

 

[Specop 007]

The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

 

[fskimospy]

Well the federal government's position was based upon Miller. To be honest I'm a bit surprised that they changed their position in 2002, considering it is largely at odds with established supreme court precedent.

I don't think that this would sidestep Miller, the type of weapon seems largely irrelevant because of the way it was phrased. It wouldn't be a unique position to disregard individual right to own weapons though, as that's exactly what was done back in 1939 or whenever. The court has moved so far to the right ideologically though that I would be very surprised if they didn't overturn Miller substantively if not explicitly.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

Fern

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

Fern

The reason the 2nd has been so contested is because of the addition of the militia part. In order to address is the 2nd is indeed a truly individual right thay have to address whether said individual is part of a militia. If they left it as simply an individual right law makers could then jump the loophole and say "with the assumption they are in a militia"....ie....In the military.

This question is perfectly framed because it gets right to the heart of the matter. Can an individual who is not part of any militia own a firearm.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

I believe they will declare only the National Guard as qualifying as a "Militia".

I don't know when it happened but I don't believe the guard was put in place to be another branch of the military like Army 2.0 as they are deployed now.

So in my mind there is no actual "Militia" in the U.S. now other than those that keep personal fire arms at home should they need them, whether for defense of home or country or against out of control country.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the federal government's position was based upon Miller. To be honest I'm a bit surprised that they changed their position in 2002, considering it is largely at odds with established supreme court precedent.

I don't think that this would sidestep Miller, the type of weapon seems largely irrelevant because of the way it was phrased Yeah, you're right. I overlooked the "other firearms" portion . It wouldn't be a unique position to disregard individual right to own weapons though, as that's exactly what was done back in 1939 or whenever. The court has moved so far to the right ideologically though that I would be very surprised if they didn't overturn Miller substantively if not explicitly.

Given the precident of Miller, my first thought was that they are preparing to reject any individual rights use for personal use.

These "far to the right ideological" seem a *states right* group to me. That could indicate that they are prepared to find no individual right and just leave it to the states.

IMO, that would gut the percieved purpose of the 2nd that many of us hold - to keep power in the hands of the people. The people's ability to prevent tryanny by the Fed Gov etc.

The states are so often aligned with the fed gov, and given the nowadays common practice of allowing the POTUS to command the national guard, IMO, render any "state regulated militia" as now exists completely unsuited to original purpose.

We could well become a nation of disarmed citizens. The door would certainly be opened for that.

Fern

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

I believe they will declare only the National Guard as qualifying as a "Militia".

I don't know when it happened but I don't believe the guard was put in place to be another branch of the military like Army 2.0 as they are deployed now.

So in my mind there is no actual "Militia" in the U.S. now other than those that keep personal fire arms at home should they need them, whether for defense of home or country or against out of control country.

Which many see as the bullshit it is, seeing as the NG was formed some 150 years AFTER the drawing of the Bill of Rights.

While our forefathers were pretty forward thinking, I doubt they were that forward thinking.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well the federal government's position was based upon Miller. To be honest I'm a bit surprised that they changed their position in 2002, considering it is largely at odds with established supreme court precedent.

I don't think that this would sidestep Miller, the type of weapon seems largely irrelevant because of the way it was phrased Yeah, you're right. I overlooked the "other firearms" portion . It wouldn't be a unique position to disregard individual right to own weapons though, as that's exactly what was done back in 1939 or whenever. The court has moved so far to the right ideologically though that I would be very surprised if they didn't overturn Miller substantively if not explicitly.

Given the precident of Miller, my first thought was that they are preparing to reject any individual rights use for personal use.

These "far to the right ideological" seem a *states right* group to me. That could indicate that they are prepared to find no individual right and just leave it to the states.

IMO, that would gut the percieved purpose of the 2nd that many of us hold - to keep power in the hands of the people. The people's ability to prevent tryanny by the Fed Gov etc.

The states are so often aligned with the fed gov, and given the nowadays common practice of allowing the POTUS to command the national guard, IMO, render any "state regulated militia" as now exists completely unsuited to original purpose.

We could well become a nation of disarmed citizens. The door would certainly be opened for that.

Fern

And therein is why this case is one of the most important cases ever to be heard, and why the decision will have far reaching effects far outside my ability to own lead chuckers.

If the SC rules that the 2nd is a collective right, it opens the door that every right is a collective. The BoR was written as a single document to affirm inalienable rights of the people. If you rule 1 as a collective right they can all just as easily be considered collective.

It would be the day our Republic as we know it truly dies, even if it takes another 100 years to really see that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

I believe they will declare only the National Guard as qualifying as a "Militia".

I don't know when it happened but I don't believe the guard was put in place to be another branch of the military like Army 2.0 as they are deployed now.

So in my mind there is no actual "Militia" in the U.S. now other than those that keep personal fire arms at home should they need them, whether for defense of home or country or against out of control country.

Which many see as the bullshit it is, seeing as the NG was formed some 150 years AFTER the drawing of the Bill of Rights.

While our forefathers were pretty forward thinking, I doubt they were that forward thinking.

Interesting. I see you were writing similar opinion as I was.

Extremely rare that we agree on something.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Interesting. I see you were writing similar opinion as I was.

Extremely rare that we agree on something.

Interesting.

Its a nice change.

Lets not let it go to our heads though.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

I believe they will declare only the National Guard as qualifying as a "Militia".

I don't know when it happened but I don't believe the guard was put in place to be another branch of the military like Army 2.0 as they are deployed now.

So in my mind there is no actual "Militia" in the U.S. now other than those that keep personal fire arms at home should they need them, whether for defense of home or country or against out of control country.

Which many see as the bullshit it is, seeing as the NG was formed some 150 years AFTER the drawing of the Bill of Rights.

While our forefathers were pretty forward thinking, I doubt they were that forward thinking.

Interesting. I see you were writing similar opinion as I was.

Extremely rare that we agree on something.

Ditto. I'm rather shocked to see myself in agreement with Dave.

 

[OutHouse]

when did the wording in the second start to be questioned? were there debates on captial hill in 1920 about it? im just curious on when all this started. im pretty sure during WWII if politicians tried to say only a militia can own a gun they would have been lynched.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Citrix
when did the wording in the second start to be questioned? were there debates on captial hill in 1920 about it? im just curious on when all this started. im pretty sure during WWII if politicians tried to say only a militia can own a gun they would have been lynched.

Gun Control started in 1934. Mobsters were running the streets armed with Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles, outgunning the police that were trying to catch them. For this reason, most people were more than happy to give up their rights to automatic weapons, supressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

The reason the government wanted to regulate those things is because those WERE the weapons of the militia. The same weapons the military used. And in the years leading up to 1934, with the depression, prohibition and governments around the world being overthrown, the US government began fearing the same fate. So they regulated the weapons of war within our country.

Gun control always serves to placate people looking for false security, but in the end only truly benefits those who wish to monopolize power.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

Fern

The reason the 2nd has been so contested is because of the addition of the militia part. In order to address is the 2nd is indeed a truly individual right thay have to address whether said individual is part of a militia. If they left it as simply an individual right law makers could then jump the loophole and say "with the assumption they are in a militia"....ie....In the military.

This question is perfectly framed because it gets right to the heart of the matter. Can an individual who is not part of any militia own a firearm.

Question"

What "state-regulated militia" exists other than the National Guard?

I'm aware of the existance of some militia groups, however I do not know if they really qualify as "state regulated militia's".

(Re: Potential redundancy) given their statement:

?Whether the following provisions ? D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 ? violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

What if they rule "no"? (attempting below some quickly done, and likely defective, decision matrix based on their phrasing)

Would it be reasonable to retry & assume a different result if the person WAS a member of a state regulated militia? Why could such a person have a right to any gun or firearm (non-militia appropriate) for purely personal uses while other citizens could not?

It seems illogical to me to take the same phrasing and retry using the same facts except weapon was for militia purposes as opposed to personal (person is not in even in militia).

Seems illogical to ask about someone in a militia wanting to use the weapon for militia purposes. Of course, no need to even contemplate a ruling on such an obvious thing.

So, I'm thinking ATM I could come to the same analysis without the inclusion of the phrase I omitted above. Thus, redundancy.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Citrix
when did the wording in the second start to be questioned? were there debates on captial hill in 1920 about it? im just curious on when all this started. im pretty sure during WWII if politicians tried to say only a militia can own a gun they would have been lynched.

Gun Control started in 1934. Mobsters were running the streets armed with Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles, outgunning the police that were trying to catch them. For this reason, most people were more than happy to give up their rights to automatic weapons, supressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

The reason the government wanted to regulate those things is because those WERE the weapons of the militia. The same weapons the military used. And in the years leading up to 1934, with the depression, prohibition and governments around the world being overthrown, the US government began fearing the same fate. So they regulated the weapons of war within our country.

Gun control always serves to placate people looking for false security, but in the end only truly benefits those who wish to monopolize power.

Well you tried Fern. Props.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Citrix
when did the wording in the second start to be questioned? were there debates on captial hill in 1920 about it? im just curious on when all this started. im pretty sure during WWII if politicians tried to say only a militia can own a gun they would have been lynched.

Gun Control started in 1934. Mobsters were running the streets armed with Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles, outgunning the police that were trying to catch them. For this reason, most people were more than happy to give up their rights to automatic weapons, supressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

The reason the government wanted to regulate those things is because those WERE the weapons of the militia. The same weapons the military used. And in the years leading up to 1934, with the depression, prohibition and governments around the world being overthrown, the US government began fearing the same fate. So they regulated the weapons of war within our country.

Gun control always serves to placate people looking for false security, but in the end only truly benefits those who wish to monopolize power.

All the more reason gun control seems a little silly now. There is nothing in private ownership under even the most permissive laws that competes with "weapons of war". Assault rifles are light arms for the military, and I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the 2nd amendment permits private ownership of helicopter gunships, artillery launchers, tanks or fighter planes.

I can understand the logic of the government not wanting to be hopelessly outgunned by the criminal elements in this country. But we're at the point now where I don't think that's terribly realistic. After what happened with the LA bank robbery, cops around the country are going out very well armed indeed...and no criminal is going to get the firepower to face down the military, no matter how easy it is to buy an AR-15.

Today, it seems like the important idea is not whether we want the government to outgun the criminals, it's whether WE want to outgun the criminals.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Citrix
when did the wording in the second start to be questioned? were there debates on captial hill in 1920 about it? im just curious on when all this started. im pretty sure during WWII if politicians tried to say only a militia can own a gun they would have been lynched.

Gun Control started in 1934. Mobsters were running the streets armed with Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles, outgunning the police that were trying to catch them. For this reason, most people were more than happy to give up their rights to automatic weapons, supressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

The reason the government wanted to regulate those things is because those WERE the weapons of the militia. The same weapons the military used. And in the years leading up to 1934, with the depression, prohibition and governments around the world being overthrown, the US government began fearing the same fate. So they regulated the weapons of war within our country.

Gun control always serves to placate people looking for false security, but in the end only truly benefits those who wish to monopolize power.

Well you tried Fern. Props.

I don't know, I think that could be a legal argument...it helps explain the legal ideas behind gun control in the first place. Maybe a little off-topic for this particular case, but not overly so.

Still, I like the idea of discussing just the legal aspects of the SCOTUS case...I just don't think Nebor took us too far off track.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Citrix
when did the wording in the second start to be questioned? were there debates on captial hill in 1920 about it? im just curious on when all this started. im pretty sure during WWII if politicians tried to say only a militia can own a gun they would have been lynched.

Gun Control started in 1934. Mobsters were running the streets armed with Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles, outgunning the police that were trying to catch them. For this reason, most people were more than happy to give up their rights to automatic weapons, supressors, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns.

The reason the government wanted to regulate those things is because those WERE the weapons of the militia. The same weapons the military used. And in the years leading up to 1934, with the depression, prohibition and governments around the world being overthrown, the US government began fearing the same fate. So they regulated the weapons of war within our country.

Gun control always serves to placate people looking for false security, but in the end only truly benefits those who wish to monopolize power.

See bolded above.

Miller said no right to weapons that were NOT militia type.

Some would erroneously believe the opposite - therefore that ownership militia type were protected under the second. But tah's not how it's been.

So one could (as many have) take it that there are no idividual rights under the second. But again, these people phrase things very very carefully. Hence, this portion of their phrasing conflicts me as it seems to strongly imply an individual, and non-militia related, right "Does....violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia". They are NOT asking if any individual rights exist, but whether the DC laws in question violate that (individual) right. Curious?

I'm getting a freakin headache

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that, if ruled to be a collective right, there will be another case that is drug out of the dusty files that will reference a ruling where the court decided that an individual can be considered a group under the law therefore circumventing it.

Just look at corporate law. There are many corporations that are made up of a single person.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

I believe they will declare only the National Guard as qualifying as a "Militia".

I don't know when it happened but I don't believe the guard was put in place to be another branch of the military like Army 2.0 as they are deployed now.

So in my mind there is no actual "Militia" in the U.S. now other than those that keep personal fire arms at home should they need them, whether for defense of home or country or against out of control country.

Which many see as the bullshit it is, seeing as the NG was formed some 150 years AFTER the drawing of the Bill of Rights.

While our forefathers were pretty forward thinking, I doubt they were that forward thinking.

Interesting. I see you were writing similar opinion as I was.

Extremely rare that we agree on something.

Ditto. I'm rather shocked to see myself in agreement with Dave.

Ditto X2

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

Fern

The reason the 2nd has been so contested is because of the addition of the militia part. In order to address is the 2nd is indeed a truly individual right thay have to address whether said individual is part of a militia. If they left it as simply an individual right law makers could then jump the loophole and say "with the assumption they are in a militia"....ie....In the military.

This question is perfectly framed because it gets right to the heart of the matter. Can an individual who is not part of any militia own a firearm.

Question"

What "state-regulated militia" exists other than the National Guard?

I'm aware of the existance of some militia groups, however I do not know if they really qualify as "state regulated militia's".

(Re: Potential redundancy) given their statement:

?Whether the following provisions ? D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 ? violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

What if they rule "no"? (attempting below some quickly done, and likely defective, decision matrix based on their phrasing)

Would it be reasonable to retry & assume a different result if the person WAS a member of a state regulated militia? Why could such a person have a right to any gun or firearm (non-militia appropriate) for purely personal uses while other citizens could not?

It seems illogical to me to take the same phrasing and retry using the same facts except weapon was for militia purposes as opposed to personal (person is not in even in militia).

Seems illogical to ask about someone in a militia wanting to use the weapon for militia purposes. Of course, no need to even contemplate a ruling on such an obvious thing.

So, I'm thinking ATM I could come to the same analysis without the inclusion of the phrase I omitted above. Thus, redundancy.

Fern

Well you're certainly thinking along the same lines I, Specop, Bobberfett etc.

It's obvious the U.S. started down a slippery slope and may possibly hit bottom on it.

Should they say individuals are not part of a "rgulated militia" and therefore cannot own guns of any type it will be quite a scene I'm sure.

People think the abortion issue was hot, take away arms from what was once proud Americans, oh boy.

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The question they framed is perfect as it gets right to the heart of the matter.
It questions an individuals right to won a firearm when he is not involved with a militia.

Why not just frame it like this:

"...violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

The part I deleted "who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" seems redundant to me. But they never engage in redundancy. It is there for a specific and well thought purpose IMO.

While I could agree it's inclusion may add clarity for some, it strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to their habit of (extreme) brevity in written remarks.

Fern

The reason the 2nd has been so contested is because of the addition of the militia part. In order to address is the 2nd is indeed a truly individual right thay have to address whether said individual is part of a militia. If they left it as simply an individual right law makers could then jump the loophole and say "with the assumption they are in a militia"....ie....In the military.

This question is perfectly framed because it gets right to the heart of the matter. Can an individual who is not part of any militia own a firearm.

Question"

What "state-regulated militia" exists other than the National Guard?

I'm aware of the existance of some militia groups, however I do not know if they really qualify as "state regulated militia's".

(Re: Potential redundancy) given their statement:

?Whether the following provisions ? D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 ? violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes??

What if they rule "no"? (attempting below some quickly done, and likely defective, decision matrix based on their phrasing)

Would it be reasonable to retry & assume a different result if the person WAS a member of a state regulated militia? Why could such a person have a right to any gun or firearm (non-militia appropriate) for purely personal uses while other citizens could not?

It seems illogical to me to take the same phrasing and retry using the same facts except weapon was for militia purposes as opposed to personal (person is not in even in militia).

Seems illogical to ask about someone in a militia wanting to use the weapon for militia purposes. Of course, no need to even contemplate a ruling on such an obvious thing.

So, I'm thinking ATM I could come to the same analysis without the inclusion of the phrase I omitted above. Thus, redundancy.

Fern

Well you're certainly thinking along the same lines I, Specop, Bobberfett etc.

It's obvious the U.S. started down a slippery slope and may possibly hit bottom on it.

Should they say individuals are not part of a "rgulated militia" and therefore cannot own guns of any type it will be quite a scene I'm sure.

People think the abortion issue was hot, take away arms from what was once proud Americans, oh boy.

There will never be confiscation in this country. They will restrict them so tightly nobody will bother. That's been the way for some time. How many people in the US own silencers? Short-barreled shotguns? Yeah. Make it expensive. Make it complicated. People will stop bothering.

The SC will rule in favor of the right to keep and bear arms for civilians, just watch.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Should they say individuals are not part of a "rgulated militia" and therefore cannot own guns of any type it will be quite a scene I'm sure.

Again, this is I think a rather alarmist position. Even if SC rules for DC, it doesn't mean "individuals not in a militia cannot own guns of any type" as you said, it just means states have the right to pass such laws, and I really can't see any passing such a law.

Even the DC law in question in this case only forbids handgun possession but allows ownership of rifles and shotguns. It's the peculiarl nature of the handgun that concerns the legislators there and who passed a law they feel is reasonably related to securing public safety. The 90+ million gun owners are gonna be just fine, as they should be.

Fern: the SC phrasing of the Q does seem to imply an individual right. Hopefully the coming briefs from the parties will illuminate the issue better.