Washington DC court rules that 2nd ammendment only applies to militias.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Scope of 2nd Amendment‘s questioned
2006/12


By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

In the Washington, D.C. case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

"We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District‘s solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim‘s argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

"That‘s quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it‘s no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

The case is: Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041.




© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[PhreeZone 20]

Thats a judge thats out of touch. The 2nd admendment is not just for militias, its protection for every citizen to legally own firearms. This one will be overturned with out a doubt.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[FallRate 0]

It is protection only if current courts agree that every citizen has the right to legally own firearms.

Has any federal court ever ruled that there it is a constitutional right to own firearms? (Not a leading question. I do not know the answer.) The most recent case I am (vaguely) familiar with concerned the citizens whose firearms were confiscated in Louisiana. But I believe that case was argued on the basis of property rights, that property had been illegally seized because there were no applicable laws prohibiting ownership.

The right may be assumed, but ultimately it comes down to how it is interpreted. If the Supreme Court determines (decides) that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, then it is clear we will not have that right. And if it is currently a right, there are a lot of people in New York City and D.C. who are being infringed upon.

Edited to add: I am not addressing whether or not we should have the right to own firearms in this post. Just addressing whether or not we do have that right at present. I have owned firearms since age thirteen, but it has always seemed clear to me that should my local, state or federal government decide to prohibit that ownership, I'm SOL. At least until the next election.

FallRate

[D22369 0]

looks like I may be joining a milita soon


welcome to amerika.

put yer jackboots on and fall in step.

our founding fathers must be rolling in thier graves....

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Gawain 0]

Well, let's see. A militia is made up of...hmmm...individuals...

...weird...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,182]

Aren't all US males between the ages of X and Y members of the militia? (I forget what X and Y are)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallRate 0]

Hmm...letters? axes? chromosomes?

Any of this helpful?

FallRate

[Cudlo 0]

Quote

Aren't all US males between the ages of X and Y members of the militia? (I forget what X and Y are)

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[SpeedRacer 1]

so, not for women or for men over draft-able age?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Has any federal court ever ruled that there it is a constitutional right to own firearms?

uh yes, and rather recently. Who remembers - two, three years ago, in the Texas area, I believe over the gun ban on people under restraining orders.

Anyway, one shouldn't worry too much about the appellate court for the 52nd non state in the country. That's a political decision all the way, not one based on our Constitution.

[jimmytavino 16]

Ok so if firearm ownership is argued to be protected by the US Constitution, so be it.

NOW... where does it say that 'ammunition'
ownership is also protected????

when that document was written over 200 years ago, wasn't gunpowder and lead balls still the fashion??
If our Forefathers ARE rolling over in their graves, I bet they'd be amazed at the huge variety of technology, machinery and ammo clips, now available to the general public......

IMHO the NRA as well as most all weapons manufacturers, and many "overzealous individuals" have pushed well beyond the 'spirit of the law' by advocating possesion of extreme weaponry, here in the 21 st century...
and yes,,, any weapon , including easily concealed handguns, which can fire multiple rounds in quick succession, qualifies....

Humans have been on this earth now for a couple of million years and got by just fine for over 1,998,000 years, defending home and hearth from predators, wild beasts, and territory seeking fellow humans, without guns.

The potential for guns to "protect us" may be genuine, but it's "value" is far outstripped by the destructive characteristics which these implements have demonstrated over and over and over again....(senseless acts of stupidity and brutality, "accidental" deaths caused to children AND adults due to improper handling of guns, false sense of courage and bravado on the part of some gun owners, which leads to crime and misuse of said gun)

We can't seem to do much about changing the "right to bear arms" so lets simply consider a new law ,,, which effectively bans bullets ( no kiddin' )

I am not anti-hunting, nor anti target shooting, but I AM anti-death... especially senseless unjustified death...at the hands of some 'desperate and lost soul' struggling to make it in certain urban situations where guns, legal AND illegal, are much more abundant than the common sense of those who are wielding them...


signed, peace seeking jimmy

• Quote

[warpedskydiver 0]

signed, peace seeking jimmy

[rushmc 23]

As I understand it yes. Courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment does hold for individual ownership however, the case that I refer too also stated that laws could limit gun types. Automatic, sawed off shotguns and others. This ruling was somewhat cloudy and has been used to say the court rules as the one in this post.

Forgive the lack of detail as it has been along time since I looked at this one closely (I am not a lawyer) but this is as I remember.

There has been some effort to get this issue to the SC to get a ruling once and for all. Looks like we may now get it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I understand you position even though I do not agree with it. My point here however is not that this constitutional right should or could be changed but by how it is being improperly changed by a political activst court.

There are proper ways to change the constitution should some one desire to do so.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jimmytavino 16]

sure.... enforce the laws then.....
problem is .... that is very seldomly done in a consistant and equitable way, sad to say. The poor and desperate defendants stand a much worse time of it, (regardless of guilt or innocence) than do the wealthy and affluent defendants

not trying to negate anything.... but trying to take a more realistic and modern-day approach to this issue....
For sure,, things in the 21st century are waaaay different than they were in the 18th century, both in terms of weaponry AND mankinds' behavior towards one another...
Not really sure what the solution is.... But in many cases, guns and their ease of availability are part of the problem

jmy

[warpedskydiver 0]

Jimmy I wonder if you would consider taking the time to find out WHY the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution IS the 2nd and not the 4th or 5th.

If you dig you can find out exactly why.

The framers of our constitution did it on purpose, it was not a fluke.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

sure.... enforce the laws then.....
problem is .... that is very seldomly done in a consistant and equitable way, sad to say. The poor and desperate defendants stand a much worse time of it, (regardless of guilt or innocence) than do the wealthy and affluent defendants

not trying to negate anything.... but trying to take a more realistic and modern-day approach to this issue....
For sure,, things in the 21st century are waaaay different than they were in the 18th century, both in terms of weaponry AND mankinds' behavior towards one another...
Not really sure what the solution is.... But in many cases, guns and their ease of availability are part of the problem

jmy

I don't think the problem is caused by the fact that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Removing that freedom legally will only affect those people who care what the law says (normal, law-abiding citizens), who aren't part of the problem in the first place.

Psychos & criminals won't give a shit.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ok so if firearm ownership is argued to be protected by the US Constitution, so be it.

NOW... where does it say that 'ammunition'
ownership is also protected????

when that document was written over 200 years ago, wasn't gunpowder and lead balls still the fashion??
If our Forefathers ARE rolling over in their graves, I bet they'd be amazed at the huge variety of technology, machinery and ammo clips, now available to the general public......

IMHO the NRA as well as most all weapons manufacturers, and many "overzealous individuals" have pushed well beyond the 'spirit of the law' by advocating possesion of extreme weaponry, here in the 21 st century...
and yes,,, any weapon , including easily concealed handguns, which can fire multiple rounds in quick succession, qualifies....

Humans have been on this earth now for a couple of million years and got by just fine for over 1,998,000 years, defending home and hearth from predators, wild beasts, and territory seeking fellow humans, without guns.

The potential for guns to "protect us" may be genuine, but it's "value" is far outstripped by the destructive characteristics which these implements have demonstrated over and over and over again....(senseless acts of stupidity and brutality, "accidental" deaths caused to children AND adults due to improper handling of guns, false sense of courage and bravado on the part of some gun owners, which leads to crime and misuse of said gun)

We can't seem to do much about changing the "right to bear arms" so lets simply consider a new law ,,, which effectively bans bullets ( no kiddin' )

I am not anti-hunting, nor anti target shooting, but I AM anti-death... especially senseless unjustified death...at the hands of some 'desperate and lost soul' struggling to make it in certain urban situations where guns, legal AND illegal, are much more abundant than the common sense of those who are wielding them...


signed, peace seeking jimmy

Not a problem.... please turn in your computer, telephone, tv and radio to the local authorities - you'll have to find the town crier to get the weekly broadsheet for your news. After all, the Founding Fathers never meant for those things to be included in the First Amendment. How could they if they didn't even exist!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 3]

Hmmm.
Militia = modern-day National Guard?
or
Militia = all able-bodied citizens?
Hmmm.

In light of Louisiana police confiscation of the guns of citizens who were protecting themselves and their property during the post-Katrina anarchy, my thinking on this issue is very much in a state of flux. I need to read both sides' briefs in this case.

[downwardspiral 0]

United States Parachute & Militia Association?

National Rifle & Militia Association?


I think that judge just might be on to something.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

The judge is full of shit. The bill of rights delineate the rights of the people, or to the states (in specifically stated instances), not of the government.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ExAFO 0]

I'm gonna buy a gun today just because of this...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I'm gonna buy a gun today just because of this...

Good idea me too i will get it this sat.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[jimmytavino 16]

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Militia = modern-day National Guard?
or
Militia = all able-bodied citizens?

...my thinking on this issue is very much in a state of flux. I need to read both sides' briefs in this case.

Both are "militias". The militia consists of the "organized" militia, or the National Guard, as well as the "unorganized" militia, and generally means all able-bodied males between certain ages. So, it's not one or the other, it's both.

Here is the U.S. Code definition on it, which apparently those anti-gun city attornies don't know or care about:

U.S. Code

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA


Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The milita of the United States consists of all able-bodied 

males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age 

who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to 

become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens 

of the United States who are commissioned officers of the 

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are:

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National 

Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members 

of the militia who are not members of the National Guard 

or the Naval Militia.

What is really screwed up here is that the residents of Washington, D.C. do not have the right to own guns like everyone else in the 50 States. And those city attornies seem to think that this is okay. So they're out of touch with 99.99% of the remainder of the population. The people of D.C. are being discriminated against by their own city administration.

More info on this issue (NRA)

News Story (Washington Times)