Washington D.C. Argues That The 2nd Amendment Doesn't Apply to Individuals

[Xmuzik]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120701001.html

Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 8:49 PM

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

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second 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.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

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.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the Second 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.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

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.

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

"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?"

[PETA]

US v Miller 1939 it is a Supreme Court Decision... the only Supreme Court decision I'm aware of that touches on the 2nd.

The court held essentially that 1) the 2nd protects individuals and 2) it protects military weapons - not hunting weapons.


Further, find me the right that can only be exercized collectively. Lastly, even if it was collective, collections are made of individuals and the only way to ensure a right to all it is to ensure it to one.


The collective rights argument is not new and/or unique - just stupid and wrong.

[joe mac]

in some countries owning arms is a privaledge not a right.

interesting how in the U.S. owning a gun is a right, but healthcare is a privaledge

?

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by joe mac

in some countries owning arms is a privaledge not a right.

interesting how in the U.S. owning a gun is a right, but healthcare is a privaledge

?

Ya weird huh? NOT!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joe mac

in some countries owning arms is a privaledge not a right.

interesting how in the U.S. owning a gun is a right, but healthcare is a privaledge

?

Interesting how people have come to demand dependence on their government for everything... something the framers quite probably never contemplated would happen.

As for health care - no one may be turned away from a publicly funded hospital because of inability to pay... so.. there you have your right to health care.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by xian

Interesting how people have come to demand dependence on their government for everything... something the framers quite probably never contemplated would happen.

As for health care - no one may be turned away from a publicly funded hospital because of inability to pay... so.. there you have your right to health care.

They are turning non-criticals away in the emergency rooms by the truckload here in Houston.85% are of Illegal status. And there is also a movment here to stop with the anchor baby bullshit as well in this area. Of course that is a Supreme court action but you gotta start somewhere.

[Oscuro]

Banning guns is not the problem. Canada has more guns per household than the United States, yet less fire-arm violence.

[Nyteshade]

It may be a cliche saying but I agree with it:

"Make keeping guns a crime and only criminals will have guns."

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Nick_Miranda

Banning guns is not the problem. Canada has more guns per household than the United States, yet less fire-arm violence.

ditto Switzerland

[kalamu]

guns aren't the problem, american culture is the problem.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by kalamu

guns aren't the problem, american culture is the problem.

yes, that is the point

[kalamu]

but it seems like it'd be easier to get rid of guns than it would be to fix american culture.

oh yes, i'm in a hopeful mood

[Adam D]

From what I understand, the whole argument comes down to questions about the placement of commas in the text of the amendment.

That's a bit much. As long as people can be responsible with their guns, leave the commas out of it.

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

Ya weird huh? NOT!

that is all you have.

i guess your education from the army helped you out eh.

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by xian

Interesting how people have come to demand dependence on their government for everything... something the framers quite probably never contemplated would happen.

As for health care - no one may be turned away from a publicly funded hospital because of inability to pay... so.. there you have your right to health care.

well there is a difference between people demanding a dependance and the government creating that dependance, whether it is their own citizens or other countries.