That’s irrelevant. The courts’ responsibility is to adjudicate the petition at hand, NOT to arbitrarily make unsolicited decisions…thank God.

Excellent, Cliff. At least someone is paying attention.

So, next step - what was the petition at hand?

A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, U.S.C.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.’ [307 U.S. 174, 177] The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

In response to the demmurrer, the Court ruled:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Not, as Richard and Albert contend:

To summarize even further: the Court ruled that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of the states to raise and arm militias, and “it must be interpreted with that end in view.”

Appellant argued the “State’s rights” position and the Court ignored it. Had the Court accepted the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, the case would have likely been disposed of on the issue of standing. This is because the defendants were not members of militias, and under the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court could have found that Miller had no standing to invoke the Second Amendment in the district court.

Yes they will adjudicate the petition at hand, and base it on the precedents established by the founders. The ruling on owning personal weapons once confirmed will automatically mend the legal concept attempted by gun control advocates, that the 2nd amendment refers to militias alone. The nonsense is about to be put to its end.

The personal right to arms is as obvious as the Revolution that created it. All free men had a gun if they desired, and kept it at home for self defense, among other things. Almost all the arms that fought the British and made this Country were PERSONAL, and not possessed in the context of any militia. The issuing of standard militia arms did not occur until sometime later in the war. Many men brought their own powder. Good thing too.

James Otis, named by John Adams as the “Master” in bringing the ideas of the revolution to the fore in Massachusetts, was bludgeoned by british customs officials, to the extent that he was never quite right in the head, again in his life.

His reasoning for revolution against tyranny? “So a man can stand up” . Standing up is best of you have your own gun, so as to delay and prevent being shot down. The historical right to bear arms is older than the nation itself. It is unquestioned, and anyone making such a claim as those today against it, would be simply laughed away. So not much has changed in these 230 years.

He was remanded to be cared for by relatives, and was often seen imagining himself back in his old life, to meet and make appointments in Boston as if he were still in business as a lawyer.

Upon the outbreak of hostilities and the run up to the Battle of Bunker Hill, Otis ran to his sisters house(where he lived), got her gun, and made his way quickly to Bunker Hill, where he participated in the Battle, and survived it.

The right to personal arms has no doubt in the context of US history, and the traditions and practices of law in this country. To argue otherwise is an unprecedented approach, and one that will be struck down, as willingly by the court as the illegal brady bill has been.

The 2nd amendment is about personal rights to bear ARMS.

jd:

Per your suggestion, I have been making my way through works of Carl Bogus, to wit: the amicus brief filed on behalf of Rakove et al. in the Heller case. A link to the brief follows:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCuRakove.pdf

I fail to see how you might conclude that this work would alter my thinking about an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, the work solidifies my thinking; albeit, I confess, I have not read the brief in its entirety. Perhaps you whould take a pass through the brief and share with us your thoughts.

PS Your comments above indicate a misaprehension on your part of the role dicta plays in reading into the Court’s mind. Richard remains spot on with his analysis of the quote we have been discussing.

Moderated?

As you can well guess, I’m familiar with Carl T Bogus (an eponymous name if I’ve ever heard one).

I believe that a substantial part of his work is here. http://www.saf.org/AllLawReviews.html

Sorry, I had to delete my previous entry because I realized that I didn’t understand your comment.

You state that, “The Second Amendment does not prohibit federal restrictions on firearms…”. What does it do, then? What does the Second Amendment prohibit?

Further, you parenthetically state, “(except in the case of state militias).” I don’t understand this statement. Does this imply that the Second Amendment restricts firearms that State Militias can have?

With regards to your final sentence, I (somewhat) agree since the Second Amendment hasn’t been incorporated under the 14th Amendment. However, I think that it’s bad law and is ripe for being overturned.

OK Cliff,

Let’s go with your explanation that

The second amendment affirms the right of states to use militia for “security.”

“shall not be infringed” is a message to the feds that they cannot restrict the right to bear arms for the purpose of a state militia.

If the Second Amendment applies only to States (just for fun, let’s entertain this fantasy) doesn’t the Amendment give the States the power to invalidate Federal gun laws? Couldn’t the State of Nevada decide that the NFA was null and void? Doesn’t it render the National Guard unconstitutional as currently constituted?

Could you name these “few freaks”? Are you suggesting that Prof. Levinson isn’t a “serious Constitutional scholar”? Are you suggesting that Profs. Tribe, Reynolds, Volokh and Judges Silberman and Kozinski aren’t “serious Constitutional scholars”?

That’s a pretty BOLD statement.

I fail to see how you might conclude that this work would alter my thinking about an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, the work solidifies my thinking; albeit, I confess, I have not read the brief in its entirety. Perhaps you whould take a pass through the brief and share with us your thoughts.

Albert, I didn’t think that you would disagree with Bogus (wonderful name) or that it would alter your thinking - I was trying to illustrate that contrary to your assertions, I was proffering BOTH sides of the argument. Will you now retract your charge of “cherry-picking”?

I don’t agree with Bogus. As a counterpoint to the Bogus Brief, please read the Brief from Academics for the Second Amendment.
The rest of the Briefs for each side as well as the Briefs for Petitioner and Respondent are here along with notes relating Oral Arguments in front of the Court. CSPAN used to have the audio of the arguments, too. http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

Apparently, like Stephen Colbert, Judge Kennedy is obsessed with bears.

The Second Amendment isn’t a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. It’s a Libertarian vs. Statist issue.

HOLY MACKEREL - it finally let me post….

jd:

Cherry-picking accusation withdrawn. But the debate must go on!

Why thank you, Albert, I’ll accept that as an apology.

Now that we’re being civil, try out this essay by Don Kates.
Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment (1990)
He’s not a stereotypical firebreathing conservative. Check out his bona fides -

Don B. Kates received his J.D. from Yale University Law School, and he has taught law at Stanford University, St. Louis University, and University of Melbourne. He has previously worked for the late civil rights lawyer, William Kunstler (Kunstler & Kinoy), and the California Rural Legal Assistance, where he served as Director of Legal Research and Senior Litigation Attorney. In addition, he has been Trustee for the Poverty Lawyers for Effective Advocacy, Member of the California State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Director of Litigation and Deputy Director for the San Mateo Legal Aid Society, Police Legal Advisor for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, and consultant to the legal services program for the cities of Seattle and Berkeley, and the state of Alaska.

Anyway, since I introduced you to Bogus, let me show you the other side with Kates.

I’ll turn you into a stale beer swilling, shotgun holding onto gun nut in no time.

And like the light that struck Constantine and the apple that bopped Newton you’ll experience epiphany.

Why can’t people simply own firearms the way they own anything else? Why bother to claim it’s a specific Constitutional right?

Bob said it, let us review some history.

In Vermont, the 1st state to join the Union, up until the Federal background check law came into effect, a person could go into a store, buy a pistol and ammo, put it in their jacket and walk out with it. Like buying groceries.

There is no Constitutional right to transportation so cars/wagons had to be registered, same is true of anything not expressly stated as a civil right in the Constitution. The 10th amendment, all else reserved to the States.

Now, how anyone believes that Vermonters, who fought the British with their personal weapons, would sign a Constitution that did not guarantee their right to personal arms is beyond me. The history does not bear it. The joining in Constitution occurred in 1791, and the personal right to arms is express, and implied.

In fact, the ability to buy and retain guns in Vermont existed in this way for over 2oo years, until the Federal laws on background checks came to pass. Convicted felons are restricted. You do not need a permit to carry a concealed weapon as a law abiding citizen in Vermont.

That anyone would believe that a group of people that risked their lives to fight against the most powerful entity in the world at the time, would sign away their sovereign right to bear personal arms, and have that right to own them, is just ridiculous. They are being disingenuous, or ignorant of historical context.

Or both.

Wrong. The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights.

The first 10 amendments are inalienable rights, and cannot be changed without altering the fabric of what the Constitution means. Denying the right to personal arms would be akin to re-establishing slavery(14th) or denying women the right to vote. The 10 amendments are ranked in number by their importance. The 1st, freedom of Assembly, speech and worship, are followed by the 2nd amendment, the personal right to bear arms, for what is free speech and assembly if denied you by a tyrant with arms?

Do you know the 3rd? That would be keeping the military out of your house, which is reconfirmed by posse comitatus, and has just been re-established if I read correctly.

Your fear of Freedom is justified. It was Eric Hoffer in his book “Escape from Freedom” that described that once a society establishes freedom, there are 2 kinds of people, those that realize the effort and risk required to maintain a free society and are willing to provide all measures for sustaining it, and then those that realize the risk and don’t want to make the effort, and instead want their mommies. These people are all about regulating others in their own fear.

Are you so willing to escape from Freedom?

Since we have seen alteration of the 4th, 8th, 6th amendments at least under the current administration, the 2nd amendment takes on even more importance when dealing with a government that has clearly overstepped its bounds. Without arms, there cannot be armed resistance, every tyrant the world has ever known, knows this implicitly.

Given the propensity of violent crime in America, from assaults to home invasion, to property crime, conditions have not changed since Indians raided the homes of frontiersmen, when the frontier was western Mass, and northern New England.

The above statements about Vermont are not premises, they are points of historical note. I can just see the likes of Washington after assuming his presidency giving up his guns for the greater good. You must be mad he would imagine.

NOTHING since then has changed. The Constitution is not a “living document”. We are not reversing it for the benefit of people who which to have a “better” perceived security. Engage that problem on your own, rather than meddle with the Constitution.

That is a friend of Cliffs’ dressed up in his redneck costume, complete with the false teeth.

Making fun of rednecks is a hobby of Cliffs’, and he doesn’t do it with love like Foxworthy.

Cliff, I answer e-mail. And since we’ve got a person in the business who is severely hearing-disabled (since an illness as a child, not from evil guns…), we generally do just about everything via e-mail anyway… And so many folks are now cellular/free long distance that toll-free numbers are generally moot. Thanks for the advice tho - but I don’t think it has much impact right now…

How do you like the stickers that are taking shots at McCain?

Cliff

You are always saying I vote against my own self interest, but how can you be a businessman and a liberal? The two must come in conflict sometimes and when they do I bet the businessman wins out every time.

Cliff, I’ve done similar things before… Thing is, about 50% of the time around here, if the landline phone rings, it just gets to go to voice mail… I hate that more than I hate just communicating via e-mail… Deafness is also the one disability which everyone seems to just ignore, until they have to deal with someone who is deaf, at which point they blame them for it…