Should the Second Amendment, "right to bear arms" apply within the District of Columbia?

[PollM]

Should the Second Amendment, "right of the people to keep and bear arms" apply within the District of Columbia as it does for States?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1049

.

[Basileus Basileon]

1. Absolutely. They should never lose the right to form State-regulated militias. nt

[Recursion]

5. Well, then they need that right back

I grow weary of explaining the difference between the militia and the national guard...

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Yes!

When they come for my guns I'll give them the bullets first.

[IndianaJones]

3. sure. nt.

[Alexander]

4. Yes. DC being a "gun-free zone" really reduced crime, didn't it?

:sarcasm:

If an assailant thinks his victim might be armed and dangerous, he won't be so anxious to attack, unless he has a death wish.

If an assailant knows his victim is unarmed because the law says so, isn't that victim a prime target?

BTW, concealed-carry laws have reduced crime, contrary to popular belief.

[parkerll]

6. Liberal Gun Owner

This extremely liberal person will never give up her handgun. I live in the country and if someone is stupid enough to break in, past 4 barking dogs, I figure I'm doing the gene pool a favor by shooting them. I've also lived alone and as a woman can tell you I slept better knowing I had dogs AND a handgun. I see from the posts above that I'm not the only progressive who feels this way.

The increasing use of tasers and gestapo-like tactics by law enforcement, private contractors (Blackwater) and the military make me even more pro-handgun. The Democrats need to get with the program on this issue. My boyfriend voted for Bush (to his great regret) because he didn't like the Dems position on gun control.

[Recursion]

7. Full civil rights for DC now!

Congressional representation
The right to self-defense

We're growing sick of waiting for them...

[Stop Cornyn]

8. The Second Amendment applied throughout the whole United States, the poll misses the point.

The Second Amendment provides "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."

The courts have interpreted this as a right of the people to keep and bear arms as necessary to foster a well-regulated militia. That is, the constitutional right to bear arms is the right of the state to have an armed national guard. The Second Amendment has not been interpreted as the "right" of an individual to own an AK-47 or a handgun or a sawed-off shotgun or an unregistered-unlicensed rifle.

I, personally, believe in an expansive reading of all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights and so I support the expansive reading of the Second Amendment, too. I am not averse to reading the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. But that is NOT how the Second Amendment has been read by the courts. To expand the Second Amendment to encompass a previously unrecognized individual right would require, unquestionably, an act of extreme judicial activism and disregard for decades and decades of well-established judicial precedent.

When you hear some Republican moaning about judicial activism, please feel free to point out that we now have the most activist Supreme Court in recent memory and any expansion of the Second Amendment to encompass an individual right would be an act of breathtaking judicial activism.

[AZ Criminal JD]

9. If you are an attorney you should post the decisions

which you claim back you up. It is your statement that "the courts have interpreted ...." B.S. The last Supreme Court decision on this was almost 70 years ago. That decision wasn't even on point and has been cited by both sides in the debate. Reading the 2nd amendment, as a matter of personal rights -- like all of the others of the Bill of Rights, as the Supreme Court did in the 19th century (with almost no comment in the 20th), would not be judicial activism.

[Stop Cornyn]

11. Here are a few cases:

Excerpt from Warin v. U.S. decided October 18, 2007:

"the Second Amendment confers only collective rights. See United States v. Bournes, 339 F.3d 396, 397 (6th Cir.2003); United States v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394, 402 (6th Cir .2000); United States v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211, 216 (1999); United States v. Ables, 167 F.3d 1021, 1027 (6th Cir.1999)."

Excerpt from U.S. v. Kelly decided August 14, 2007:

"Kelly also argues that the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons in section 922(v) violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Second Amendment states that: “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.” We held in Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.1995), that the Second Amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear firearms. In that case we adopted the collective rights theory, interpreting the Amendment to protect the states' right to organize and arm militias. Accordingly, a person challenging a federal gun restriction must show that his possession of the gun “bore a ‘reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’ “ Id. at 124 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939))."

Excerpt from U.S. v. Hamblen decided June 21, 2007:

"Although the Sixth Circuit has not expressly adopted the Haney four-part test, this circuit has held that “the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.” United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.1976). Additionally, the Supreme Court has stated that a valid Second Amendment claim requires a defendant to establish that his possession or use of a weapon “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Thus, at a minimum, Hamblen must assert a collective right by satisfying Miller."

Excerpt from Andrews v. U.S. decided May 03, 2007:

"We agree with numerous other courts that “the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.” United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976); accord Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971); United States v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082, 1090 (D.N.H.1981), aff'd mem., 740 F.2d 952 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842, 105 S.Ct. 147, 83 L.Ed.2d 86 (1984); Annot. 37 A.L.R. Fed. 696, 706 (1978) (citing cases). That is to say, it protects a state's right to raise and regulate a militia by prohibiting Congress from enacting legislation that will interfere with that right. The Second Amendment says nothing that would prohibit a state (or the legislature for the District of Columbia) from restricting the use or possession of weapons in derogation of the government's own right to enroll a body of militiamen “bearing arms supplied by themselves” as in bygone days. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). In sum, “he right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights the people may have depend upon local legislation....” Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943)."

[montanacowboy]

10. Damn Straight

When I lived there I could never imagine not being able to keep a handgun in your home. A stupid law, and one that should be overturned. And Dems better get on board with this if that is what comes down. We will continue to suffer if we keep up with banning handguns from citizens.