I hope folks give some real thought to the repercussions of this case and whatever decision is reached. For instance
"No doubt or ambiguities arise from the words 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' " the brief contends. "The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is no more ambiguous than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The problem is that, when combined into a single statement it does not say what gun nuts want it to say. The doubt and ambiguity arises from attempts to excise the preamble.
The District has said that even if there is an individual right to gun possession for self-defense, it can ban handguns if it provides access to other categories of firearms.
There's a level where I want to say, "You can ban switchblades and gravity knives, and you can't ban a gun?" The absurdity of it all really does get to me sometimes. But the fact is there is already an absolute ban on fully automatic weapons, and that ban has withstood court scrutiny. The ease with which a semi-automatic weapon is converted to fully automatic makes the ban a little laughable. But that should have no impact on the legal argument.
Heller's brief said the amendment's preamble referring to the militia gives one, but not the only, reason the framers considered the amendment necessary.
If this argument holds, the whole "strict interpretation" and "no legislating from the bench" thing will be returned to their pre-Conservative Revolution status of empty rhetoric. Making up undocumented reasoning and inserting it into The Founders' heads will become valid legal reasoning
No, not only when dealing with gun law. And THAT'S the reason folks need to be careful here. Gun culture is a subset of American culture...or maybe the other way around. With all the gun enthusiasts and hunting enthusiasts and raw paranoids driven mad by the Islamist Threat To Destroy The Heartland (Save the Cows!), guns aren't going anywhere. And D.C.'s gun law truly has gone beyond the pale...when I argue for sane gun law that is NOT a call to banish all weaponry. It is a call for sanity...which, quite frankly, is not to be had by the blind application the rhetoric of either side.
It would be much better to say, "Here's something they couldn't know about in the 1700s..." To create law by the standard laid down in the preamble...not to the Second Amendment but the preamble to the Constitution.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Thoughts
I'd like to point out that there are two legal classes of militia--the organized and the unorganized. The organized militia is what has morphed into the National Guard, although being under federal control, paid by fedgov, and sent to slay monsters overseas, even that doesn't really fit the lawful definition of the organized militia. Then there is the unorganized militia, which, according to copious writings of prominent early Americans, includes the whole body of the people minus a few elected officials. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the organized militia; the Second Amendment refers to the unorganized militia. An armed (and well trained and provisioned) populace is necessary for the security of a free country.
This doesn't mean that the moment private arms are banned there will be tyranny, but there is much historical precedent to show that genocides are preceded by victim disarmament laws ("gun control"). Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has done a lot of research on this subject. The primary reason for the Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting; it's about guarding against tyranny in government.
Too many Americans, contentedly distracted with their jobs, beer, sitcoms, football, and sexual pursuits, imagine that "it can't happen here." And yet we're encountering "bread and circuses" all over again. We've grown ignorant of history and complacent, and we have ignored the advice of our founders to distrust our government. Just since 9/11, we've seen a series of unconstitutional legislation get passed in the name of security, rapidly turning the United States of America into a kinder and gentler police state. The similarities between American after 9/11 and Germany after the Reichstag fire are uncanny when studied closely.
Dishonesty is at the core of anything designed to limit or deny another’s freedom so that one can “feel” better about not taking personal responsibility for ones own thoughts, words, or actions. Honesty requires a level of mental emancipation and maturity many are not ready for. Some also seem to forget that the Bill Of Rights was enacted specifically to limit the powers of government, not the powers of the governed. That freedom is the responsibility of the citizenry, not the government.
With rights come responsibilities. The responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms is the first part of the Second Amendment--being in a militia. For anyone wishing to take seriously the responsibility that comes with keeping and bearing arms, I invite you to find the unit nearest you by visiting http://www.awrm.org. We are not what the media make us out to be, but you won't know that unless you check us out for yourself rather than taking the word of mainstream media talking heads.
Peace.