It’d by nice to see an update on this topic.

It looks like this decision is finally going to put a period, end of paragraph, end of chapter and end of book on the issue of whether or not the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to own guns. Finally.
Americans have a right to own guns, Supr…

The Hebrews had to go to Philistine blacksmiths because the Ps did not want the Hebrews to be able to make weapons.
1 Sam. 13

All dictators have taken and will take the arms of people FIRST.

On March 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am, ACHefty said:

It’s a very simple thing. Interpret the Amendment the way an English teacher would. Use the subject/predicate breakdown. The right … shall not be infringed. Thus, the “militia” is moot.

Thanks for the laugh. Suffice it to say that if you were a law student with that kind of reasoning, you wouldn’t need to concern yourself about making the Order of the Coif (or passing the bar, for that matter).

Historically speaking, it is only comparatively recently that a “militia” (as opposed to a standing army) would’ve had its weapons and equipment provided by the state. And seeing how in the early days of our republic we had but a tiny standing army and depended heavily on the militia for local defense, it made sense for the Founders to write the Second Amendment the way they did.

Of course today, if you were to join the National Guard – the direct descendant of the old state militias – you get everything provided, including an M-16 or an M-4. So one might think of the Second Amendment as something of an anachronism in the literal sense, or maybe like a human appendix: it may have had a functional role at some time in the past, but today just sits there as a reminder.

That being said, there may still come a day in our country’s future so black that we might once again have to form scratch militias at the local level. Hard to imagine, yes, but impossible, no. And in that case, the Second Amendment’s original meaning would get a new lease on life.

And because the possibility exists, albeit remotely, that such a dire exigency could arise, it’s hard to see from a legal perspective the Court upholding any law banning the ownership of firearms in the home if it sticks with the literal language of the Amendment.

Yeah, just exagerrating for effect. But, seriously what arms should we have and not have?

Also, in Scott v. Sandford, the Court held “[n]or can Congress deny to the
people the right to keep and bear arms,” while listing various other constraints on the powers of congress. Another case that mentions this is Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), where it was said “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the FIRST EIGHT amendments”- which obviously includes the Second Amendment as a personal right.

Because of these main facts, I urge the Court to rule in favor of Respondent Heller.

Breyer and Ginsberg were their usual liberal selves but Kennedy appears to be the swing vote.

Since DC is not a state, I don’t know how this will be seen as a precedent.

Number of children drowned in a pool in my neighborhood = 1 (sadly). Number of children shot = 0. Number of homes with guns? 23 out of 24. Number of roberies = 0.