The Most Significant Second Amendment Case In History

[marmar]

from HuffPost:




Paul Helmke
The Most Significant Second Amendment Case In History
Posted November 20, 2007 | 06:47 PM (EST)



Last March, the District of Columbia saw judicial activism replace the will of the people.

Today, with news that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the appeal of DC v. Heller, the Justices can set things right.

Over 30 years ago, the elected representatives on the DC City Council decided to enact a system of strict gun laws to help protect public safety. The people in DC strongly support these laws. The District's police strongly favor them as well.

The District's decision has been attacked over and over again by outside interests more concerned with pleasing the gun lobby than respecting the will of the people. Some in Congress have tried multiple times to overrule the District's preference for strict gun regulations, but have failed each time.

In 2003, however, a wealthy benefactor decided to fund a challenge in Federal court to the District's strong gun laws. A fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute, his argument lost soundly at trial.

On appeal to the Federal circuit court, however, two judges handed him a "victory." They decided to ignore almost 70 years of Supreme Court precedent , over 200 years of American history , and even the text of the Constitution itself . In so doing, they imposed their own policy preferences on the people of DC.

It was a textbook example of judicial activism at its worst. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/the-most-significant-seco_b_73608.html

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. One thing i find fascinating about the gun debate is how many people can quote the 2nd amendment

verbatim but have no idea what the 3rd amendment is about.

Context is important.

[ourbluenation]

14. about quartering soldiers? or did you mean the first part of the 2nd re:

a well armed militia.

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. The 3rd amendment to the Constitution.

Not a clause in the 2nd.

Yes - quartering soldiers.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Placed 3rd - ahead of the right to a speedy trial by jury, ahead of being secure in "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", ahead of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines or bail. More than a CENTURY ahead of a womans right to vote.

The prohibition of being forced to quarter soldiers was listed before all those other things.

As i said, context is important

[Man_in_the_Moon]

2. Dont trust what that Rethug says

Paul Helmke....

[marmar]

3. Actually, it seems to be one of the rare instances of a Repug making sense...

n/t

[Man_in_the_Moon]

4. Be careful...

...arguing that the 'will of the people' should trump rights is a very slippery slope.

[jody]

6. I assume you mean the natural, inherent, inalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self

and state.

The right to keep and bear arms is either explicit in the enumerated 2nd Amendment or protected as an unenumerated right in the 9th Amendment.

[razors edge]

12. And any questions of

the founder's intent are clearly addressed in the Federalist Papers.

A "well regulated militia" would not resemble the National Guard of today, any more than it would resemble the regular army of 1779.

[jody]

17. And Pennsylvania clearly established RKBA as a natural, inherent, inalienable right.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

And

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Either an individual’s natural, inherent and inalienable right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment as one of the enumerated rights or it is protected by the Ninth Amendment as an un-enumerated right.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[razors edge]

24. Absolutely,

These people all had to hunt and no prohibition on the right to provide food would have been accepted, its not vague in any way to me.

[jody]

5. IMO the probability is very high that SCOTUS will uphold the right of law-abiding citizens to keep

and bear arms for self-defense.

First, IMO the conservative SCOTUS majority would not have accepted the case unless the probability was high that it would support RKBA for law-abiding citizens.

Second, IMO the conservative SCOTUS majority expects the court to become more liberal in the next few decades. That suggests that a decision upholding RKBA should be made now rather than risking a possible adverse ruling re RKBA in the future.

Stare decisis "the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons (as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice)"

[billbuckhead]

7. Disaster capitalism at it's finest

The arms industry floods the market with cheap dangerous weapons with little regulation which leads to the highest murder rate by multiples of all advanced nations and then coerce the public into having to buy even more weapons. However the Constitution is interpreted, it was never meant as a suicide pact, hence the "well regulated" part. The irony of the gun pimps applauding right wing leadership in the government and courts is that with these NRA politicians in power, what the law says doesn't matter since Cheney-Cunningham-DeLay-Norquist-etc types don't follow the law anyway.

[razors edge]

8. How are we being coerced?

And besides, if they didn't sell them I would build my own.

Ive been shot twice, once in anger in the back streets of the Philippines, once by accident.

The accidental one left me no one to blame but myself,luckily it was a mere flesh wound and I staunched it myself.

The other incident left me in need of 65 stitches. 4 for the gun shot wound and 61 for the knife wounds inflicted by the two guys without a gun.

The gun was an old 22 caliber pistol that I disposed of, after I disposed of the three muggers with my fists. These poor men who lived in the slums of Olongapo had no access to high dollar weapons and would not have used one in that instance had they owned one. I have a two thousand dollar 1911 that I would never consider using in a crime if I were to go down that road, why take the chance of loosing a high dollar item in an iffy situation?

There will always be a supplier, there will always be a buyer. Think of prohibition and how well that all worked out to stem the rise of violent crime.

The rich will never part with their guns, I'm not rich but I will never give up mine either.

Even the idea of removing cheap guns is class warfare and possibly racist in my opinion.

An elitist idea that alienates the moderate voters away from the democratic party.

I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with you that outlawing guns will solve the problem.

[cgrindley]

9. Soooooo judicial activism... anyone see a bit of a disconnect here?

judicial activism is something that Freep screams about... now, it's something we scream about? perhaps there is no such thing and when someone's pet cause loses, that's just the best they can come up with?

[marmar]

10. The guy who wrote the piece and used "judicial activism" is a Republican.

n/t

[Wiley50]

11. .Remember, This is DC 2007

There's always a chance that a few stray bullets might save democracy where our reps would not

[razors edge]

13. Too many lobbyists,

too few bad shots.

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

15. Its time for SCOTUS to get its ass off the fence and make some rulings that clarify the 2A.

[razors edge]

21. This won't be that time.

It will deal strictly with DC, a Federal jurisdiction.

The laws not not addressed in this ruling are still left to the various states, as it should be.

If one state wants to outlaw guns completely, let them. Then you will have a USSC case to settle the issue, as this would interfere with interstate commerce and then the issue would be decided once and for all.

I personally have no problem with a state going prohibition on something, we can all vote with our feet, and the poor decisions of the state will be reflected in their lowered representation in the congress. Democracy in action.

[jody]

23. Pennsylvania and Vermont have the clearest expression of an individual's right to keep and bear arms

for defense of self and state.

SCOTUS could then get involved in deciding whether the 14th Amendment applies as with other civil rights.

[razors edge]

25. They could get involved

but any removal from the protections against Dred Scott would be the end of civil authority.

I don't believe the congress has any intention of going there, they will be content with looting the treasury and disappearing from our grasp.

The Supremes are not going to be left as the only show on stage when the bottles start to fly.

Edit: Que Blues Brother's Rawhide behind chicken wire scene.

[dysfunctional press]

16. handguns are here to stay.

and at this point, that's how it should be.

with the twin terrors of peak oil and global warming combining to fuck up our not-to-distant future, it might be a good idea to be armed to the teeth. the survivors will be.

[jody]

22. Handguns are the most effective, efficient tool that law-abiding citizens can use to exercise their

natural, inherent, inalienable right to defend themselves.

That's why law enforcement officers choose handguns first and add rifles/shotguns for special situations.

[ourbluenation]

18. there are originalists on the SCOTUS like Scalia and Thomas...

wonder how they will interpret a "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."

clearly we have no need for a citizen army anymore. hmmmm?

the other thing of interest here is the matter of settled law. in a weird way, it could influence Roe, in terms of the acceptance of settled law. To support settled law for gun rights, but not for Roe, could create a bit of a pickle down the road.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billbuckhead]

26. Gun pushers cheering on the most fascist and criminal court in history

The ironic reality is that whatever this reichwing court decides, progun reichwing politicians and judges have proven to have little regard for law and little fear of a well armed populace or even terrorists easily buying guns down at MallWarts.