Recent Comments
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
The "debate" over gun control, with positions bordering on the insanely tyrannical, is moot. You can't put such draconian restrictions on a natural, fundamental, ENUMERATED civil right.
In 1994, the D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions didn't exist. There was no judicial barrier to passing bans. Now, it is precedent that a) the people have an individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes not dependent upon militia service, b) that holding has been incorporated to the states, and c) Justice Scalia (in the Heller holding) clarified what the U.S. v. Miller (1939) decision actually said.
Miller established a two-pronged test to define just what types of arms are subject to Second Amendment protection. It held that small arms "in common use" that "bear[s] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" enjoy constitutional protection. Semiautomatic rifles and pistols meet both prongs of this test, hence they are proscribed from any government ban. Since the primary purpose enumerated in the amendment is to place the people in parity with government forces viz small arms, standard-capacity magazines (erroneously dubbed "high-capacity ammunition clips") are protected as well because they are design components integral to the efficiency of the weapons. In other words, the very things that are now scary to the uninitiated are those the amendment was written to protect.
"[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
The Heller decision also addressed (and dismissed) the argument that the Framers couldn't have envisioned the capability of today's modern weapons. Just as the Internet has supplanted moveable type, so have semi-auto firearms supplanted muskets.
The principle involved in both of these rights is not constitutionally affected by the evolution of the mechanisms to exercise them. Now, this may be bad news to some, but it is pure celestial harmony to others.
And, it is the state of the law.
Re: “Feeling Ignored, Gun Lobby Threatens to Retaliate Against Harwell and Her Supporters”
Typically, the title poses the issue exactly inverse to reality, characterizing liberating legislation as "expansion" of rights. There is no "expansion" in these meaures, rather the removal of unconstitutional abridgements already in place.
Re: “Down in the Dumps over Todd's Arrest, Gun Freaks Lash Out at Harwell and the RINOs”
One guy trips over his d*ck and the world goes crazy?
Nothing in the merits of lawfully-armed citizens carrying wherever they want has been affected by this. It's a fart in church - just open the windows, and it will air out the stink.
Stick to the facts, the documented history of other states that haven't had any issues with it, and the unassailable guarantee given us by the Constitution of the United States, and calm down, fer chrissake.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Stacy, you wrote in part: "As I interpret the Second Amendment, the 'right of the people to keep and bear Arms' is based on 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.' "
It is not. For an expert analysis of the sentence, see http://www.saf.org/journal/4/4_schulman.ht… . You will see that the purpose for guaranteeing the right is stated in the subordinate clause, but the right is guaranteed unconditionally in the operative clause.
You also wrote: "Since the 21st century equivalent of a well-regulated militia that secures the United States' freedom is endangered only by a lack of funding, something our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, I believe so long as the Second Amendment is not repealed, that Second Amendment literalists should be on board with the prohibition of citizen ownership of all firearms- except muskets! (Active duty military and law enforcement officers would, of course, be exempt from any laws banning firearms ownership.)"
Wrong again.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. Ameian Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
"Held:
"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
And, as to repealing the Second Amendment, the Court had this to say:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
This opinion not only never has been challenged much less reversed, but it was also cited in the D.C. v. Heller decision.
You anti- folks seem to believe that you actually have a grasp of the facts. You don't.