Redstate

and there could not have BEEN a more slam-dunk case of 'freedom of association'. Should have been laughed out of the Circuit Court by a clerk.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

As ridiculous as it is, it could happen.

#2 would be bad, but probably not as bad as you might believe. It may well be that they rule that "reasonable" restrictions are Constitutional, but that laws as draconian as DC's are not reasonable. If not, then you could be right. Many of the really bad state laws are based on the idea that RKBA is not an individual right. If it is ruled to be individual, then the basis for them drops out.

It's also possible that they'll rule that the DC regs are reasonable because DC's a special case where the constitution explicitly gives congress extra rights, and not find the need to reach the individual or collective rights decision.

In fact, the more I think about it, that's the most likely outcome.

The justices are loath to really have to make sweeping judgments about issues like this. It is hard to imagine how narrow and nuanced this decision is going to be.

Since the Bill of Rights is oriented toward the federal government and applies to the states through incorporation, I can't see that argument working, but who knows?

A vigorous affirmation that the legitimate reach of the federal government is constitutionally bound.

And it still leaves the 2nd amendment question open for a later date.

Which is better if your a lefty? A 14th incorporated right of everyone, including city dwellers, to keep and bear arms, or broader power devolution to the states across the bill of rights, but tighter restriction of federal action?

Depends, I suppose, on how scared they are of my arsenal. Think I'll add to it!

The good, pro-Constitution jurisprudence of Silberman probably inspires Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer to go even further in the opposite direction.

I think to say it is the most important case in history overstates it a bit, but I agree that it is really important. My guess is they don't even reach the issue of whether or not the right to own a gun is an individual right. It would probably be sidestepped by just answering that this regulation is reasonable, hence they don't reach the most important question.

I think we can all agree that this case is of monumental importance. It isn't often that the Court is presented with an opportunity to define, or begin defining, the core meaning of an enumerated constitutional right.

--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

If they go to the level (and I'm not saying they will) of deciding on the meaning of the wording of the 2nd Amendment, it's the most important case in the history of the Western world, at least as far as the United States is concerned.

If they decide that the 2nd Amendment is only a "collective" right it means effectively that individual citizens have no ability to own them because their ability to do so can be, and will be, completely legislated into oblivion.

And then only Charles Schumer will be able to decide who can own a gun. It's that stark. They might as well be debating whether free speech only applies to government publications. That's how important it is.

and I have real questions about how this could happen, but if they decide that the 2nd amendment is only a collective right, what exactly is involved in forming a militia? Could we form an online militia consisting of any RedState visitors so inclined so that we could all own guns as militia members? Does anybody know?

Oh, and doesn't the constitution specifically say that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution are strictly off-limits to the federal government? Thus the 2nd amendment doesn't say that we have a right to anything, but that the federal government does not have the right to make laws about whether we can have guns? Which would actually be a better position for gun owners than saying that the government gives them the right to own guns?

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

But I think it would be a terrible development for individual liberty if people had to band together to form a "militia" under the aegis of, say, the NRA. One of the most important observations about the private right to own firearms in the United States is that it is dispersed: it is widely observed and basically you don't need to be a member of a "militia" in order to do so. Historically that has been a good thing for the United States and I think it would be a gigantic mistake if the Supreme Court decided that the "militia" part is more important than the "people's right."

The people's right to bear arms means that individually you can own one, without being a member of the NRA, without being conscripted, without being a member of a police force. As long as you meet the qualifications and have not broken any egregious laws, you are allowed in most states in the country to keep a firearm.

Once you begin calling it a collective right you get into the very serious business of deciding which groups are "collective". It's not just needless, it's downright un-American.

I'm a member of the NRA which defends my right to privately own firearms, but I don't necessarily want to be a member of a "militia" under the auspices of the federal government. My ability to own firearms privately is main bulwark against having to be.

That isn't to say that people don't need to obey laws about firearms. 80 million gun owners in America already do. It's a travesty that people in D.C. aren't allowed -- because some City Council decided -- that they are second-class citizens.

They essentially told people living in the District that they aren't as trustworthy or capable of owning something that isn't even as dangerous as gasoline -- because they live in the District. In other words, they're not even citizens, they're just wards of the State.

My fundamental take on the 2nd Amendment is that it has always give me, as a law-abiding citizen, the prerogative to *decide* whether or not to own a firearm.

I have *never* owned one, and I still don't. I've shot a lot of them, but I've never *owned* one.

But I consider it to be an ineradicable part of my liberty as a citizen that if I want to own one, I could go down to the local gun store and buy one. I want my right to do so preserved indefinitely.

I trust that I'm intelligent to decide whether or not I need one, for whatever reason I want one. And most importantly, I trust other Americans to be able to decide.

It's the last sentence that bothers anti-gunners the most. They don't. They don't trust themselves, and they most certainly don't trust their fellow citizens. But I don't want to live in their world: I'd much rather be able to continue to visit my local gun store owner and buy ammo. for my little popgun RWS and think about which kind of grips I'm going to have on my 1911 while their kid rides her tricycle across the floor.

The bottom line is that a lot of the people who want to ban guns don't consider *anyone* in this country to be enough of a citizen to own one. It's stupid, it's counterfactual, it goes against everything in our nation's history, but that's not stopping them.

far, far more important.

Roe pulled something out of thin air - if this goes the wrong way - it will be taking away a fundamental right granted to us by our founding fathers.

the reversal of Roe remits the abortion issue back to the states whereas the 2nd amendment's reversal or re-wording would strip a fundamental right as you said.

Very important and potentially very dangerous

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

555

The main clause of the Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the guaranteed right. The part about the "well regulated militia" is in the dependent clause explaining the importance of the independent clause. It specifically says "the right of the people" - that means exactly what it says.

Imagine that it said "A well-educated populace being essential to the liberty of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed." There is no legitimate way to read that and then believe that only certain people can own books and then only after a waiting period and background check, and that certain books were "assault books" and therefore too dangerous for the average person to own.

Basically, 'well-regulated' here means disciplined, ordered. Here's a fairly reasonable list of citations from about the same time:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

actual militia regulations of the various states.

They cover such matters as caliber and make of musket or rifle, amount of prepared cartridges, amount of lead balls and lead blocks, amount and quality of gunpowder.

Plus equipment to be carried by the individual militiaman such as bullet making equipment, cartridge paper, flints, ramrod, auger to withdraw unfired bullets, bayonet or hatchet, canteen, mess gear and blankets.

Finally, the amount and type of provisions (usually three days of rations) to be carried by each individual when the militia is called up.

The militia commissioners, on militia day, would check to see that everyone not exempt from militia service had the arms and equipment as specified in the militia regulations.

Anyone without the proper equipment would be fined and then made to purchase the missing items from either militia stores or local businesses.

As you will see the citations you have offered completely miss the point of a "well regulated militia."

n/t

of the states from 1789 onwards. These regulations are the "best evidence" as to what the various state lawmakers understood by the term "well regulated militia."

You didn't actually provide a citation. Preferably in a link, so readers can judge context for themselves.

The right of the people to build a house shall not be infringed.

You have a right to build a house, and the shelter is ONE listed reason. Additionally, the notion of a militia under the republican liberty ideals of the founding was that a community of individuals come together for the purpose of either supporting or checking state power.

A militia member is a synonym for citizen in our founding philosophy.

I don't think you really read our posts or else read them with a preconceived notion. Would you mind explaining how you get around the individual right part and focus only on a power of the state that isn't even mentioned in the amendment? I didn't read anything out of the Amendment, but it is not part of the right. It is explaining the reason for the right. Read the Federalist papers and the quotes that Skey linked to in his post. We are the militia - all of us. Take a look at the Militia Act of 1792. Read about the unorganized militia.

But most were just requested to keep some firearm of general military value.

I am a member, in spirit at least if not with any laser-engraved credentials, of that "well-disciplined militia" of which he speaks. But it's a citizen's militia, and it's composed of ordinary citizens who not only had the firearms before they were "called up" but who would never surrender their right to do so if they were, and would undoubtedly keep them even after their militia duty had ended.

That's the authentic American.

But let's dispense with the flowery prose of yesteryear for a second and just think about our reality for a moment: why on Earth would any government think about taking away my right to bear arms as a citizen at this point?

I'll just quote from the Blackstone's commentaries on the 2nd amendment, in 1803.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

But I question the premise of your post. I see a ton of outrage over McCain-Feingold, which was in my view plainly a usurpation of the First Amendment. There was a ton of outrage over Kelo, which seems to stand the fifth amendment's protections of private property on its head.

Which tweakings in particular are you referring to?

I see your points. I disagree with your perspective, but you helped me see through the eyes of someone who is on the extreme opposite end of the ideological (and almost definitely political) spectrum. Interesting.

Thanks for responding to my questions as seriously as you did.