Supreme Court could take guns case

[E25280]

Originally posted by TalonX
Not sure, but there are 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The 10th Amendment . . .
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How can that be considered an "individual right?"  

[Shamus]

Originally posted by E25280
The 10th Amendment . . .
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How can that be considered an "individual right?"  

Thats why he said 1-9, oops #10 refers to states rights so that makes the prior 9 collective.

shamus

[lazs2]

so why add "to the people" in the tenth if it is soley a collective right of the states?   Why not use "the state" in the second?    Why would they even mention the people in the second if they had meant the government?

I believe that the court will define the second as an individual right that the federal government can't take away or infringe.   I believe that they will hold that the states have the right to restrict the freedom to keep and bear arms.

I think that is the only way they can sidestep the issue gracefully for the next few decades.  

They will say the states have the right to restrict but not take away the rights but..  no federal law is able.

I think what we will have is a mishmash of states laws.. worse than now.

lazs

[john9001]

the 10th was supposed to limit the power of the federal govt, not "give" power or rights to the states or the people.

The whole constitution was supposed to limit the federal govt, not confer rights or powers to the people or the states.

"trust not in the good will of men, but bind them down with the chains of a constitution".... Tom Jefferson

[JBA]

Originally posted by john9001
the 10th was supposed to limit the power of the federal govt, not "give" power or rights to the states or the people.

The whole constitution was supposed to limit the federal govt, not confer rights or powers to the people or the states.

"trust not in the good will of men, but bind them down with the chains of a constitution".... Tom Jefferson

WRONG:
To fully understand the Constituiton you  should read the Federalist papers.

Restricting Fed Govt. powers was their intentions but They are filled with passages giving power to the STATES, and individuals,.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

Paper number 29,  Madison:

On the establishment of a militia and the armed citizen.

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
_____________________________ ________________________

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

[john9001]

thats what i was trying to say, i did not do a good job of it.

[Saxman]

So does that mean an F-22 in every garage, and tactical thermonuclear warheads in every basement?

[Tiger]

Originally posted by Saxman
So does that mean an F-22 in every garage, and tactical thermonuclear warheads in every basement?

If you can afford it...

I personally would hate to have to pay the registration fee and property taxes the 22.  Sign me up for a 20 year old F-16.  Or maybe some of the F-15's that are about to get scrapped.

[Charon]

So does that mean an F-22 in every garage, and tactical thermonuclear warheads in every basement?

This is an area that is open to debate, even among pro 2nd amendment folk. I have found references that clearly define arms as what would be considered personal individual small arms, including military logistics documents of the day (where there are references like "...arms, cannons and stores..."); the framers (referencing things like "arms in hands"); dictionary definitions clarifying the difference between arms and ordnance; military department documents referencing arms and ordnance plants separately; and state constitutions referencing "drilling with arms" and the definition of "bearing." Similarly, crew served weapons move more into the "collective" model of weaponry with some viewpoints.

I cannot find similar common references that imply the right to "man ordnance" or "with our cannons..." etc.

Now, you can own a variety of ordnance today as a privilege (with the appropriate tax and cost) as Class 3 destructive devices, and there are those who collect and shoot everything from a 90mm recoilless rifle to a 90mm AT gun (usually with solid shot as an explosive round is also it's own, separate destructive device.

Charon

[Saxman]

The sticking point is that even if the framers of the Constitution DID intend the 2nd to give the citizens the same military capability as the government to prevent using the army to suppress the people, this was written when armies fielded flintlock muskets, (supplemented by rifles in the US) pistols, sabres and cannon. The concept of airpower and armored vehicles were so far removed as to be inconceivable at the time.

[Terror]

Originally posted by Saxman
The sticking point is that even if the framers of the Constitution DID intend the 2nd to give the citizens the same military capability as the government to prevent using the army to suppress the people, this was written when armies fielded flintlock muskets, (supplemented by rifles in the US) pistols, sabres and cannon. The concept of airpower and armored vehicles were so far removed as to be inconceivable at the time.

The point still applies though.  If the framers intended the Second Amendment as a means to ensure "the people" had the ability to oppose a "tyrannical" government, would they have allowed weapons of todays destructive power in the hands of "the people"?

Tough call.  Maybe not.  But I would at least say they would allow the same "small arms" available to the military.  Up to and including Assault Rifles and Squad Support Weaponry.  Otherwise, any opposition any "people" would apply to a government would be meaningless unless the "people" were backed by some "government" in part or whole.

T.

[JBA]

Originally posted by john9001
thats what i was trying to say, i did not do a good job of it.

I thought that might be the case:

[bsdaddict]

Charon made the comment I was going to, regarding "arms" vs. "ordnance".  The right to bear the former is guaranteed, the latter isn't.  

IMO, the 2nd boils down to the right to self-defense.  The right to defend one's self from iminent harm is an unquestionable, natural right.  If I'm about to be attacked by someone wielding a gun and all I've got is a knife or my fists, I'm not in a very good position to defend myself, am I?  To expound on the "arms vs. ordnance" topic, arms can be used for self-defense.   Ordnance, not so much...

[lazs2]

saxman.. I believe that you have been answered.   ordinance and arms were clearly defined.   ordinance was expected to be provided the militia by local, state or federal government.. the "people" were expected to show up with arms.

Also... there would be no problem with local governments restricting explosives.  you would not want to live next door to someone with a ton of dynomite  for instance.   or a rocket.. it is a hazard that you can't control.   exploding ammo (from a fire say) for "arms" would not be.

explosives could be restricted no problem if they posed a real threat of hazard to neighbors.    

lazs