Second Amendment Decision

[Frodo]

For the purpose of this poll, here is a link to the decision handed down today in District of Columbia, et al vs. Heller.

[Χahar]

No, because the District of Columbia is not a state (among other reasons).

[SPC]

No, because the District of Columbia is not a state (among other reasons).

Why would that have anything to do with it? It is still part of the United States of America and thus, still subject to federal laws, including the Bill of Rights.

[Senator Ben]

Yes (I/O)

[Χahar]

No, because the District of Columbia is not a state (among other reasons).

Why would that have anything to do with it? It is still part of the United States of America and thus, still subject to federal laws, including the Bill of Rights.

But it has no militia. Therefore, there is no right to bear arms.

[Ebowed]

No (D)

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes (R)

But I think its not a federal issue.  However, given the magnitude of the civil rights violation this law was, it might be appropriate.

[CPT MikeyMike]

YES (I/O)

[YRABNNRM]

Yes, gun rights might be the issue that I'm most conservative on oddly enough.

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court's decision is quite obviously correct. Firstly, the plain text of the Second Amendment is crystal-clear; it provides that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to people, and not to members of any particular militia. Secondly, the provisions of the Constitution that protect rights deserve broad, liberal interpretations, not strict, narrow ones. Thus, even if there were some sort of ambiguity in the Second Amendment, it should be resolved in favor of the right, not against it.

[SPC]

No, because the District of Columbia is not a state (among other reasons).

Why would that have anything to do with it? It is still part of the United States of America and thus, still subject to federal laws, including the Bill of Rights.

But it has no militia. Therefore, there is no right to bear arms.

"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."

How does the part about the well-regulated militia have anything to do with the part after the comma, refering to the right to keep and bear arms?

[MSUfan]

Yes (D)

[Torie]

Close call, but yes on points.

[Χahar]

No, because the District of Columbia is not a state (among other reasons).

Why would that have anything to do with it? It is still part of the United States of America and thus, still subject to federal laws, including the Bill of Rights.

But it has no militia. Therefore, there is no right to bear arms.

"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."

How does the part about the well-regulated militia have anything to do with the part after the comma, refering to the right to keep and bear arms?

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

[Emsworth]

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

The composition of the militia is irrelevant. Whatever militia may have meant in the eighteenth century, and whatever it means now, the meaning of the term "people" is quite plain. The right of the people to bear arms is protected; it does not depend on membership in any organization.

[MasterJedi]

Yes (R)

[dead0man]

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

We still are.  Every male, 17 to 45 is in the reserve militia.  cite

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

Then I suppose "the people" in amendments I, IV, and X also refer to the militia? Of course not. You are correct in pointing out that back then the people were considered the militia, but "the people" still means "the people". The first part of the Second Amendment is explanatory of at least one reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it is not the part of the amendment that states the law itself. It's a justification for the amendment, nothing more and nothing less. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to be compliant with modern vernacular, it would be something like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Militias were very informal during the time the amendment was implemented - they weren't actually regulated by the government, rather they were just local groups ready to fight when an emergency came up. By protecting the right of individual people to keep and bear arms, civilians could (and still can) form militias when necessary, among other things.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

Then I suppose "the people" in amendments I, IV, and X also refer to the militia? Of course not. You are correct in pointing out that back then the people were considered the militia, but "the people" still means "the people". The first part of the Second Amendment is explanatory of at least one reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it is not the part of the amendment that states the law itself. It's a justification for the amendment, nothing more and nothing less. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to be compliant with modern vernacular, it would be something like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Militias were very informal during the time the amendment was implemented - they weren't actually regulated by the government, rather they were just local groups ready to fight when an emergency came up. By protecting the right of individual people to keep and bear arms, civilians could (and still can) form militias when necessary, among other things.

     Agreed. However, I'm shocked that Democrats are asserting that only militiamen can bear arms as the basis for their opposition to the decision.

     A much stronger argument in favor of the DC gun law, though not one that the Democrats would like, is that the 2nd Amendment does not specify what kind of arms. As such, guns could be outlawed provided that people were allowed to protect themselves with swords & bows. But then, DC would try to ban those as well.

     In fairness to the Democrats, President Bush has been most vehement in his attempt to abridge our 4th Amendment rights, so they're not the only offenders in this regard.

[Harry]

I agree with their definition of the 2nd amendment, however I disagree with overturning the ban.

[Albus Dumbledore]

I say overturn all gun control legislation passed since 1930.

[Applezz]

I disagree because you put the guns in the hands of sociopaths. The solution to this problem is to simply have strickter gun license laws, something no candidate in 2008 believes.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Second amendment, applemanat. Read it sometime.

[CARLHAYDEN]

"The people" refers to the militia. Back then, everyone was part of a militia.

Then I suppose "the people" in amendments I, IV, and X also refer to the militia? Of course not. You are correct in pointing out that back then the people were considered the militia, but "the people" still means "the people". The first part of the Second Amendment is explanatory of at least one reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it is not the part of the amendment that states the law itself. It's a justification for the amendment, nothing more and nothing less. If the Second Amendment was rewritten to be compliant with modern vernacular, it would be something like this:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Militias were very informal during the time the amendment was implemented - they weren't actually regulated by the government, rather they were just local groups ready to fight when an emergency came up. By protecting the right of individual people to keep and bear arms, civilians could (and still can) form militias when necessary, among other things.

John,

You are essentially correct, but the definition of militia is conterminous with those eligible to cast a vote in a state election (i.e. at this point, adult citizens who have not been convicted of an ad hominem felony or treason, and who have not been found mentally incompetent by a court of law).

As such, it is both a right and an obligation!

Note how the Stone Mountain ordinance has to the best of my knowledge never even been challenged in court!

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

John,

You are essentially correct, but the definition of militia is conterminous with those eligible to cast a vote in a state election (i.e. at this point, adult citizens who have not been convicted of an ad hominem felony or treason, and who have not been found mentally incompetent by a court of law).

As such, it is both a right and an obligation!

Note how the Stone Mountain ordinance has to the best of my knowledge never even been challenged in court!

I'm not quite certain which ordinance you are referring to. Could you be thinking of Kennesaw?

As far as gun ownership being an obligation, that's rather debatable. While there is a mandate for household owners to have a gun, there are exceptions - felons and the disabled of course, but notably those with religious objections. That's basically why it hasn't been challenged in court. Anyone who doesn't want to comply has an easy out. Even a hardcore atheist could say he doesn't want to own a gun on moral grounds and it would probably be allowed to slide. There's not much room to challenge it given it's not really forced on you to any great degree.

My stance on most basic rights are that you are free to choose not to exercise them if you wish. There are times when you might feel that you have a moral obligation to exercise one of your rights, but that's a matter of perspective and others wouldn't necessarily feel the same given the same situation.