Comments on: Supreme Court punts on Second Amendment case for now

By: Michelle Malkin » SCOTUS takes up the D.C. gun case

Michelle Malkin » SCOTUS takes up the D.C. gun case — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:35:57 +0000

[...] After waiting a week on pins and needles, the Supreme Court has decided to take up the D.C. handgun case: The Supreme [...]

By: pokenhorn

pokenhorn — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:22:12 +0000

All ‘rights’ are individual. What would a collective right be? Name some other ‘collective’ rights. In 1953, when I was 11 yrs. old my dad drove me to Williams Gunsight in Davison, MI. I plunked down about $13, the man behind the counter passed me my single-shot Winchester Model 67, and we left. My dad had said not a word. When I was 61, I went to the very same shop to buy a single-shot .410. In going through the rigamarole, there was a long delay while they followed the law in order to get approval of the sale to me. I finally left but called back every day for a week to see if I had been cleared. After a week, they said that since no rejection had come back on me, I could then come and pick up the firearm. What I could do as a boy I cannot do as a grown, retired man. Don’t tell me freedom isn’t under attack from the American left and their Democrat party acolytes.

By: nraendowment

nraendowment — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:49:56 +0000

Re #9: Taylork says,”I’m not sure your logic follows. If the USSC does not hear the case, then the lower court ruling stands, which would mean that the ban would be unconstitutional. Thus, not even hearing the case would be a pro-individual rights decision.”
Yes, the lower court ruling would stand, but it would only be enforcible within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Other Districts are not required to honor that decision, thus it is simply a local victory. This same scenario played out with United States v. Emerson before the Fifth Court of Appeals in 2001, when the court decided in favor of the Second Amendment as an individual right. What changed nationally? Nothing.
It is time to end the Second Amendment’s death by a thousand cuts, one way or the other. Then at least we’ll know where we stand.

By: dakine

dakine — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:48:51 +0000

Well stated Chief…I think you about said it all.

By: JohnHolliday

JohnHolliday — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:07:51 +0000

First of all, THIS is the complete Second 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.

People in this blog have substituted the word “vital” for “necessary.” Which is strange because you can just open another browser window and search for the full text of the 2nd amendment.

I also agree that it is an individual right and does not mean you have to be part of the militia to keep and bear arms. Try this change to the right to vote:

A well-educated citizenry, being necessary for an informed electorate, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed.

Could this be interpreted that only college graduates are allowed to vote? We need to stop this socialist assault on our rights and our ability to protect ourselves.

By: ArmoredCAV

ArmoredCAV — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:48:58 +0000

I’m keeping mine. Regardless.

By: leepro

leepro — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:47:21 +0000

Silentbrick said:

You know, if the 2nd amendment doesn’t refer to an individual right, why would the government need to state that a militia can keep and bear arms? The government would not need anything stating such, so for the amendment to refer to anything BUT an individual right is just plain illogical.

Excellent observation! I do believe you’ve hit the proverbial nail on its noggin!

A V-8 moment for the rest of us!

Duh!

By: Silentbrick

Silentbrick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:17:30 +0000

You know, if the 2nd amendment doesn’t refer to an individual right, why would the government need to state that a militia can keep and bear arms? The government would not need anything stating such, so for the amendment to refer to anything BUT an individual right is just plain illogical.

By: WarTip

WarTip — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:16:16 +0000

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.

– George Washington –

By: Chief1942

Chief1942 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:52:46 +0000

Rusty,
I can appreciate your “discomfort” with firearms. I sense you probably are thinking more of handguns primarily when you refer to “guns” as being out of place in crowded metropolitan environs. As one who grew up with guns of all sorts and used them primarily to put food on the table (and to provide for self-defense), I view them in an entirely different context than you. To me they are simply a tool with which to accomplish a designed task. Just like a chainsaw or many other “tools” they are extremely hazardous and demand absolute respect and appreciation for their lethality.

I spent my career in the Fire Service in SoCal (30 years) and as you might imagine I saw first hand the end result of irresponsible and criminal abuse of the “Right” protected by the 2nd Amendment. But growing up in and returning to, on retirement, a rural environment I am somewhat distanced from your type of situation. I have not lost my appreciation for how many in crowded metropolitan environments view gun possession and make every effort not to add to their apprehension whenever our paths cross in my rural environment.. But I seriously hope that the SCOTUS finally settles the debate, once and for all, over this collective vs individual right to bear arms.

As an “old timer” the 2nd Amendemnt’s interpretation had seldom even been questioned until perhaps in the last 40 years or so. Suddenly 200+ years of reading it and accepting it as an “individual” right has been turned on it’s head and for socio/political reasons only as far as I can discern. Hopefully, the court will decide the argument once and for all and we can get on with confronting the solutions to other divisive and emotional social/legal issues we are faced with. I for one am sooo tired of the bumper sticker cliches’ from both sides of this debate.

I congratulate you on your openess and being forthright in your concern while at the same time acknowledging that you also, read the 2nd the way so many of us have for all these many decades. It is truly the cement that secures our ability to sustain all those other ‘rights’ we hold so dear.

By: bonewah

bonewah — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:48:01 +0000

Anybody who is interested in the constitution as it relates to the 2nd amendment, the history of gun laws and court ruling and everything about the politics of guns should check out http://www.guncite.com Its a fantastic resource.

Also, as another poster said, read the court opinion of parker vs DC, its totally readable and well defended.
For the collective rights view, read Silveira v. Lockyer. The parker vs DC dissent was a weaker copy of the majority of Silveira.

For those interested in gun crime statistics, check out Dr. Gary Kleck, he is the most respected criminologist studying gun crime now. Here is a great quote about him from Marvin Wolfgang:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns–ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. …

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator… I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. …

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. …

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. …

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
— Marvin E. Wofgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

By: orlandocajun

orlandocajun — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:20:07 +0000

Anil, don’t forget that the constitution also states “public Use”. That didn’t stop the liberal supreme idiots from changing it to “public benefit”.

Banning any kind of firearm would be defacto government oppression. They’ll have to take mine from my cold dead hands.

By: RyanInSanJose

RyanInSanJose — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:16:09 +0000

I’m headin’ down to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in a bit.. anyone need me to pick something up for you?

By: Anil Petra

Anil Petra — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:12:09 +0000

Stop reading your fanciful interpretation into the plain English text of the 2nd Amendment. It’s very clear.

You get to keep your arms to fight government oppression.

Whether the government can cut off your hands at the wrist has never been addressed by the federal courts.

You have at least a leg to stand on. But do you have a right to one? Not constitutionally.

By: orlandocajun

orlandocajun — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:47:26 +0000

If they do take up the case, I can’t wait to hear how they segregate hand guns from shotguns and rifles if they vote in favor of DC. The Constitution states “arms”. It doesn’t say what kind of arms. Liberals, of course, would rule that the framers meant hunting arms and not hand guns. In any event, with the millions of guns in the hands of Americans already they would have to kill all of us to get them.

God help us if Hillary ever gets to appoint a Supreme Justice.