9th Circuit: Individuals don't have the right to own firearms.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Zkribbler, you are aware that words in 18th Century English don't necessarily have the same meanings or emphasis as they do today, don't you?

Why yes. For an excellent treatise, read Garry Wills' Investing American, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

On the other hand, I doubt if the Framers ever meant for a six-year-old to have the non-infringeable right to carry an Uzi.

Does anyone here feel anymore free because there are extremist groups of self-appointed "militias" training in the woods to overthrow the U.S. government? Did Timothy McVeigh strike a blow for freedom?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Does anyone here feel anymore free because there are extremist groups of self-appointed "militias" training in the woods to overthrow the U.S. government?

Certainly, because the govmt spends more time watching them than me. Also, it makes it easier to ID the wackos.

[Jon Miller]

Monkspider





Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I am a christian communist ?(most of the time)

Jon Miller

[mrmitchell]

to the 9th Circuit (sure to get flames on this one )

Did not read through the entire thread, but the Second Amendment was mostly because of that large empire owning 1/4 the world whose HQ was on the other side of the puddle. I mean, Great Britain, or England, or the United Kingdom, or whatever it was called then. Much like in the Revolutionary War, militia (which needed guns) would probably be necessary to fight the British. Now that there is no one on the other side of the puddle that we can't take on with our official US Army, militias aren't really necessary, and as such guns aren't really necessary.

The means of Revolution now (teaching and enlightenment) are much more possible due to our government. (Some kind of Democracy, I think; we need to get rid of the electoral system or whatever it was that made Bush president, he did not have a majority of the people's votes!!!) In the 1770's, the means of Revolution were bloodshed and chaos due to the type of government at that time. ("L'etast cest moi" is a quote that comes to mind as far as the King then, and in times before it. I don't know why, as I know there was a Parlaiment, but the Americans got no representation in it. )

Anyways...

[korn469]

The Bill of Rights was passed to limit the power of the federal government. It wasn't until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed that these limitations began being extended to the states.

while i think this is certainly possible in the minds of the framers, it certainly doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the bill of rights doesn't apply to states, and since you admitted that with the passage of further amendments the states are indeed subject to the second amendment

so what that leaves us with is the people's right to bear arms in today's society shall not be infringed by either the state or the federal government

if that right is such an obvious menace to society then amend the constitution, but don't ignore the rights it grants us, this is a slippery slope that could take away all of our freedoms

hell if nothing else put in a John Ashcroft clause:

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; except when it poses a threat to national security.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by korn469
while i think this is certainly possible in the minds of the framers, it certainly doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that the bill of rights doesn't apply to states, and since you admitted that with the passage of further amendments the states are indeed subject to the second amendment

That is certainly a viable argument IF the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals (as the 5th Circuit has held) and not to the state's right to arm their militias (as the 9th Circuit has held). If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit federal encroachment upon the ability of the states to arm their state militias, then it makes no sense to extend the application of this amendment to the states.

so what that leaves us with is the people's right to bear arms in today's society shall not be infringed by either the state or the federal government

...Only if you adopt the reasoning of the 5th Circuit and make the opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment meaningless.

if that right is such an obvious menace to society then amend the constitution . . .

It will only need amending if the 5th Circuit's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct.

...Well, okay, even if the 9th Circuit is correct, we still gotta get rid of some of those commas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit federal encroachment upon the ability of the states to arm their state militias

The only problem is that if it was meant to prevent encroachment on states' rights, they would have said so. Do you think the first amendment prevents federal encroachment on states ability to free speech and religion? Does the fourth amendment prevent federal encroachment on states ability to unreasonable searches (by federal authority, I take it). NO! So how can one amendment be viewed as totally meaning something different from the rest, when it is written in the same way and by the same guys.

The 9th Circuit here is dead wrong, like it usually is.

[Ramo]

Ah! So "regulated" does not mean "regulated" but rather "running well on its own without any regulation." Thanks for pointing out my erroneous thinking.

Well, even today, something can be regulated by the human body, statistical mechanics, symmetries, and so forth. A number of other mechanisms besides the authority of the state. It's just that in the 18th century, the word didn't emphasize the latter mechanism as it does today.

Oh...and uh.."trained" by whom?

Family and friends passing on discipline, hunting and fighting skills, etc. Gun ownership, of course, was pretty pivotal in insuring that at the time.

[Thrawn05]

I'm not even going to torture myself reading this thread, so I'll just post my opinion.

If you...

1: Have the Money
2: NO felony convictions

Then in the US, yes, you have every right to have a gun. And with special permitts, even automatics and vintage guns (like the Tommy Gun, and WWII water-cooled machine guns).

Otherwise, you're stuck.

[Ned]

A plausible reading of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

"Congress shall pass no law infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as a well regulated Millitia is necessary to for the security of a free State."

The debate, summarized by the 9th Cir., centered on whether the power to arm the militias would be exclusive with the Federal Government. It was feared that if the power was exclusive power the Federal Government could effectively abolish the Militias simply by not supplying them arms.

In those days, as is now in most of the world, Militia men were ordinary citizens who could be called up when necessary. They kept their guns at home. If the Federal Government could prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they could, by indirection, effectively abolish state Militias.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to limit States rights, as Imran has noted. It was intended to limit Federal power. Once this is understood, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States. They can, if they want, remove the right of the people of their states to bear arms. But the Federal government cannot.

Thus, the law in question is constitutional because the law is a law passed by the State of California.

However, I suggest that national laws that infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the military type - as implied by the Supremes in the Miller case - may be unconstitutional. Weapons, like sawed off shotguns, can be banned as noted in Miller.

The grey area would be a Federal law that affected the right of the States to form a citizen militia in any manner it saw fit. For example, I think a State could pass a law requiring every citizen to keep an assault rifle. A federal law that prevented the trafficking in assault rifle would interfere with this right. It would unconstitutional for this reason.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In those days, as is now in most of the world, Militia men were ordinary citizens who could be called up when necessary. They kept their guns at home. If the Federal Government could prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they could, by indirection, effectively abolish state Militias.

Exactly right. The 'militia' was basically all white males over 18. In that era those were the only people that mattered, so it only stands to reason that militia meant every person!

The Bill of Rights refers to individual rights. The only place where states' rights are delineated is in the 9th Amendment, where it specificially says 'states'.