The upcoming SCOTUS ruling: Thurs 6/26, 10 AM

[ThomasJ]

----------
EDITED BY MOD:
Editing this first post to note that the decision in Heller has been announced, and a compilation of information, the Supreme Court Decision, News articles, etc. can be found here:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-...ual-right.html
----------

I thought that the upcoming ruling would be a slam dunk, but given the recent decision regarding enemy combatants at Guantanamo (and the Kelo decision, but that was before Roberts and Alito), I'm very much concerned. I'm afraid the five liberals will find in D.C.'s favor and rule against the individual's right. Given the ACLU's position on the 2nd and Bader-Ginsberg being a former ACLU attorney, she will definitely rule against gun rights.

In anticipation of a defeat, I'd like to quote a passage from a book I just picked up this weekend, "Florida Firearms. Law, Use & Ownership" sixth edition:

On December 15, 1791, the Congress of the United States ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These Amendments have been become known to us as the "Bill of Rights". Foremost among them, from the standpoint of this book, is the Second Amendment.

In a historical context, the Second Amendment covers two clearly distinct concerns of the framers of our Constitution. One was to insure the rights of the People to keep and bear arms. The other was to insure the existence of the popular militia. I will discuss both.

The Bill of Rights
The 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."

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, a loose confederation of thirteen individual colonies had just defeated King George of England in what was basically a citizen's revolution. For the most part, the American Revolution was won by a collection of locally organized militia which had been banded together into larger groups and armies to fight the common enemy, the British. These militia were comprised of freeman from all walks of life, who were locally organized, self-armed, and who trained and drilled under locally elected leaders. This was the choice method of defense - as regular, or "standing armies" were thought by many of the free populace to be instruments of tyranny - the means by which despots and kings were able to control their subjects by force, and thereby rule. Thus, the definition of "well regulated militia", was simply a reference to an independent group of self-armed freemen, under self-elected leadership, who regularly or occasionally drilled, and were not under government control. In more general terms, it was clearly understood that the phrase "well regulated militia" referred to the "body of the people", ie, the free citizens of the land, as a whole.

There was much argument during the Constitutional Convention whether the creation of a central government would tend to foster tyranny, and much of this discussion revolved around the argument as to whether a standing army for this central government should be permitted at all. Many enlightened thinkers of the time believed in the concept that "power tends to corrupt", and thus there was a basic fear of any centralized government, and its eventual ability to oppress.

The only counter to this fear was that a well organized militia comprised of the free people of the several states would always be more powerful than any standing army - and thus the People could overthrow any corruption of government by force of numbers. Moreover, the thinking that also pervaded the times was clearly that the local militia would always be necessary to the national and local defense - as there was no desire to allow a centralized government to gain such power as to obviate this need. Of course, to guarantee these beliefs, the right for the people's militia had to be ensured. The result of this thinking lies in the first part of the wording in the Second Amendment: "being necessary to a free state".

Somehow, the well regulated militia has passed-away over time, and has been replaced by the professional soldier, the National Guard, and an organized police force. The National Guard has little to do with what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as "a well regulated militia" as it lacks the localization, freedom from government control, and freedom from government purse strings that would be necessary to this concept. In fact, the National Guard would have been defined as a "select militia" in the late 1700's, that term meaning a militia armed and maintained by the government, and obviously subject to its discipline.

So, don't get thrown off track by media misinformation. A "well organized militia" historically referred to the body of the citizens of this country, locally organized, and free of government control. While we probably don't need such active militias now, the right to have them is historic, and is guaranteed in the Constitution.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
What phrasing could be any more clear than that of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yet, today, the media, many politicians, and various anti-gun organizations have so contorted the origins of this amendment, that hardly anyone except a historian, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals understands that it means exactly what it says. Let's take it from its historical precedents.

First, you should know that the primary argument regarding this particular Constitutional provision at the Constitutional Convention was not whether the People had the right to keep and bear arms - but that this particular right was so fundamental that it was almost tantamount to an insult to have to put it in writing, and include it. It was an "inalienable" right. A "natural" right. A "personal" right. Something about which there could be no reasonable debate.

The natural or inalienable portion of the right was tied to the right of self-defense, a right which was believed to be so inherent to the individual that no government could legitimately curtail it.. The mere thought that government could infringe upon this right was anathema.

Thus, the right to keep and bear arms was just that - that every freeman had the right to have weapons, and use them in his own defense. It was not tied to a "well regulated militia". In fact, a clause to add a phrase that the right was "for the common defense" - was soundly rejected by the Constitutional Convention, just for that reason.

Don't let anybody tell you differently!


from "Florida Firearms. Law, Use & Ownership. Sixth Edition"
By Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq.
Warlord Publishing, Orlando, FL
www.FloridaFirearmsLaw.com

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

I'm afraid the five liberals will find in D.C.'s favor and rule against the individual's right.

i don't think so. if you read the questions they were asking during oral arguments, it seems clear that several of the "liberals" will be voting against DC.

[ThomasJ]

You can't read their questions like that. They are just trying to see if the lawyers can argue their case well.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

You can't read their questions like that. They are just trying to see if the lawyers can argue their case well.

i understand what you are saying, but if you compare the questions they asked heller's atty. vs. the questions they asked DC's atty., i really think you can derive where they are headed.

but...we shall see...in the not-too-distant future.

[Kenshin]

That and if they don't rule in the right of the individual, Montana has the right to secede based on the agreement they made when they entered the Union.

[knight0334]

Just because they voted for the prisoners it doesn't mean they will vote for DC. Their decision for the prisoners is a good sign that they know the Constitution. Your, and our, concern should be how the believe the wording and meaning of the 2A is in the Heller/DC case.

[awkx]

I must agree with LittleRedToyota. Justice Kennedy seems view the Second Amendment as broadly protecting the keeping and bearing of arms for personal self-defense, and he clearly rejects the "collective rights" misinterpretation of the Second Amendment:

MR. DELLINGER: ... The States were devoted to the idea of their militia of volunteers, and of all the powers granted to the Federal Government one of the most surprising was to say that Congress shall have the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia and to -- even though the officers could be appointed by the State, the discipline had to be according to Congress. And this was -- this caused a tremendous negative reaction to the proposed Constitution.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the Second -- the Second Amendment doesn't repeal that. You don't take the position that Congress no longer has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, do you?

MR. DELLINGER: No.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So it was supplementing it. And my question is, the question before us, is how and to what extent did it supplement it. And in my view it supplemented it by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Just because they voted for the prisoners it doesn't mean they will vote for DC. Their decision for the prisoners is a good sign that they know the Constitution. Your, and our, concern should be how the believe the wording and meaning of the 2A is in the Heller/DC case.

Actually, it is quite the contrary. The Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, especially ones who have taken up arms against the U.S. and were captured as enemy combatants on foreign soil. It was a preposterous, and disastrous, ruling.

[Evolution]

Does anyone know when they are to rule on this?

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by jcheinaman

Does anyone know when they are to rule on this?

Anticipated sometime this month. This Thursday or next. Probably next Thursday, especially if the rule against individual rights, since there are a couple states with the stated intention of seceeding if that occurs.