Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned

[phillyd2]

Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006 9:08 p.m. EST

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned

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?"

© 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

[SGTUSArmy]

This one has some major issues forthcoming. This one scares the daylights out of me. Now, let me go to the range and practice my 2nd amendment right before some judge says I can't use it.

[KeithPA]

I love the District of Columbia's opinion on this one.

The 2nd amendment only has to do with militias and there is no need for militias anymore so there is no need for the 2nd amendment.

Next there will be no need for the 1st, then 3rd, and will continue on the way.

[LorDiego01]

Originally Posted by DeltaII5

Next there will be no need for the 1st, then 3rd, and will continue on the way.

As far as the 1st ammendment, you should have heard the blasphemy that was uttered by Newt Gingrich a few weeks ago in New Hampshire. He advocated getting rid of the 1st ammendment in order to fight the war on terror. Its sickening.

[Glock22xd9]

This will never go through in our lifetime. There are too many people that count on the votes of law abiding handgun carrying American bred apple pie eatin citizens that value this amendment . And if it does, the government will see a lot more not so well-regulated militias. The whole reason for the second amendment is for the citizens of this country to be able to take up arms and revolt if the government tries to take away our rights.

[Statkowski]

Whenever questioning the scope of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, one must first take note of the preamble to the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10, inclusive), particularly the first paragraph thereof:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[Glock22xd9]

One could argue that it is not an abuse of power, but i'm not sure who could actually pull it off!

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Glock22xd9

This will never go through in our lifetime. There are too many people that count on the votes of law abiding handgun carrying American bred apple pie eatin citizens that value this amendment . And if it does, the government will see a lot more not so well-regulated militias. The whole reason for the second amendment is for the citizens of this country to be able to take up arms and revolt if the government tries to take away our rights.

Agreed, but it would be nice for the Supreme Court to grow a pair and decide in favor of it. Personally, I don't see how they could vote in defense of DC's position, where there's dozens of DOCUMENTED quotes of our Founding Fathers' position on this issue to prove intent of the 2nd Amendment and it's meaning. But, until they actually do rule in favor of freedom, anything's possible.

[Glock22xd9]

well i think they look at gun-toting red blooded Americans as some kind of terrorists.

[Statkowski]

Just ask the gun-totin' residents of Athens, Tennessee what they accomplished back in 1946. Don't know about such? Just look up "Battle of Athens, Tennessee" on your search engine.