Hot Topic (9/27): Is gun ownership an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

[Cafe GroupAdmin]

Is gun ownership an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment? Link

PRO (yes)

National Rifle Association

"Gun control supporters insist that 'the right of the people' really means the 'right of the state' to maintain the 'militia' mentioned in the amendment, and that this 'militia' is the National Guard.

Such a claim is not only inconsistent with the statements of America's early statesmen and the concept of individual rights as understood by generations of Americans, it misdefines the term 'militia.' For centuries before the drafting of the Second Amendment, European political writers used the term 'well regulated militia' to refer to the citizenry on the whole, armed with privately-owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves."

John Ashcroft, JD, former US Attorney General

"Let me state unequivocally....the Second Amendment clearly protect[s] the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms...

While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights."

 

CON (no)


American Civil Liberties Union

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

 

Seth Waxman, JD, former US Solicitor General

"...There is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or use a gun...

That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive administrations.

The Supreme Court and eight Appellate Courts] 'have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia.'"

 

What are your thoughts? Are you for the Right to Bear Arms or do you prefer more Gun Control?

[stormcris]

I support the right to bear arms in and of the fact that we are not expressly denied the right under the Constitution and the federal government is not granted an express right to deny under the Constitution. The states are permitted all jurisdiction over things not expressly granted to the federal government so under that fact any contract, treaty or law expressed by the federal government under gun control is not within their power to do so. Each state is permitted to regulate their gun laws as they see fit. I have the right to bear arms in my state.

I would like to add that the founders took the ability to own a gun as a common right and thus would not have thought for the need to dictate that out in the Constitution. However, a militia is controlled by the state and thus the states have the power for regulation of guns and should decide what a militia is and is not each for themselves. Therefore it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate on the matter. That is under the 2nd amendment.

[cowgirlsr2]

I believe that this ammendment was put in to place so That every American has the right to bear arms and to protect themselves from an unjust goverment just as it reads.

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Annotations

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7 

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/secondamendment.html

Why was the Second Amendment written, and why is it still important today?

Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 
 

What does it mean?

It means exactly what it says, that the people’s individual right to be armed will be respected and that the resulting armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime.  Our founding fathers were careful to construct this sentence in such a manner that there could be no other reasonable interpretation besides the obvious.  Anybody with even the most limited understanding of the English language will agree.

Why was it written?

• We migrated to the United States to escape oppressive totalitarian government.
• The concept behind the United States is that the centralized federal government has limited power over the people (as opposed to the dictatorships from which we came)
• The Second Amendment states that in order to maintain a free state, the people must retain the right to keep and bear arms.  The presence of armed citizens is what keeps the government "honest".  No government would be foolish enough to impose a dictatorship on people who have the ability to resist.
• The Second Amendment does not grant us this right. This right already existed.  The Second Amendment merely prevents the government from infringing on it.

Why is it still important?

There are those who would say, "The Second Amendment's not needed anymore.  There's no threat of tyranny in our government."  While it's fortunate that we've grown comfortable with our government, we need to remain aware that the only reason we have been able to grow comfortable with it is because the Second Amendment has prevented the government from posing a threat to us for all these years.   History is littered with stories of unarmed citizens being taken over by dictators (Germany is one such example).  Could that happen here?  Not if we maintain the right to keep and bear arms.  No other country has the freedoms that we have here in the United States.  This is truly the most awesome place in the world to live, and I would like to keep it that way.   When politicians take an anti-Second Amendment stance, we seriously need to wonder about their motives.

Each and every amendment in the Bill of Rights is important, but the the Second Amendment is the most important because it guarantees that the others will not be taken away.   Think about it.  Once the right to own firearms is eliminated, eliminating all other rights (such as the Freedom of Speech) will be a piece of cake.  If that happens, what are you going to do?  Protest?  You certainly can't resist.  All you can do is watch it happen.  The Second Amendment is our insurance policy against this.  It's been working quite effectively for over 200 years, and as they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

If you gun control advocates still dream of a day when the private ownership of guns is banned and the police are the only ones who are armed, feel free to relocate to the People's Republic of China, where your dream is a reality.

MILITIA???  Just what is the militia?
NOTE:  "Well-regulated militia" does not mean the National Guard.  At the time this was written, "well-regulated" meant "well-trained".  If you believe "militia" means the National Guard, you must also believe that freedom of speech is reserved for the U.S. Government printing office.

 If you read 10 USC Sec. 311 (That's Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311, subtitle A part chapter 13) you'll find this:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

In other words, if you have a penis, you ARE the militia!

[athenax3]

I believe so- that's how it appears to have been written at that time, during that particular frame of reference in our history, considering the facts of the world and the state of the nation at the time it was signed.  I believe that times have changed significantly and so has the environment, but whether or not that is ever going to be taken into account in regards to this document and what it should mean or entail I honestly don't know.

[grammie6]

Quoting cowgirlsr2:

"If you gun control advocates still dream of a day when the private ownership of guns is banned and the police are the only ones who are armed, feel free to relocate to the People's Republic of China, where your dream is a reality. "

Why do pro gun folks always use China as an example of a "gun free country"???

The murder rate in the US is at +5%...Murder rate in Ireland +1%, Murder rate in Great Britain +2%.  also gun free countries...Please try not to be so mellow dramatic when attempting to make a point..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

[athenax3]

Quoting grammie6:

Quoting cowgirlsr2:

"If you gun control advocates still dream of a day when the private ownership of guns is banned and the police are the only ones who are armed, feel free to relocate to the People's Republic of China, where your dream is a reality. "

Why do pro gun folks always use China as an example of a "gun free country"???

The murder rate in the US is at +5%...Murder rate in Ireland +1%, Murder rate in Great Britain +2%.  also gun free countries...Please try not to be so mellow dramatic when attempting to make a point..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

yes, but China is the scariest example of the possiblities, geez..............

[EireLass]

I support the RIGHT to bear arms, just as I support the right to do alot of other (controversial) things. BUT, just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. That goes for alot of things.

I think there are alot of "gun toting" people cheering on their right to own, but I wonder what they'd do if they were ever in a situation. I wonder how many of the people screaming for the right have ever been on the wrong end of the gun? I was, and it was a horrifying ordeal. I still own, and am licensed to carry concealed, but I see guns very differently now. Overall, I think most people are very removed from the reality of a gun, as they've never had to use it, or had it used on them.  

[eaglemama2]

It's your right to bear arms, it's your right to defend yourself and your family and your property.

Guns are not dangerous - it is the people that use them.   If you do not educate yourself about guns and are stupid about it, accidents will happen.    Kids should also be educated about guns.  

Saftety first, always.

[sweetie00]

Quoting EireLass:

I support the RIGHT to bear arms, just as I support the right to do alot of other (controversial) things. BUT, just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. That goes for alot of things.

I think there are alot of "gun toting" people cheering on their right to own, but I wonder what they'd do if they were ever in a situation. I wonder how many of the people screaming for the right have ever been on the wrong end of the gun? I was, and it was a horrifying ordeal. I still own, and am licensed to carry concealed, but I see guns very differently now. Overall, I think most people are very removed from the reality of a gun, as they've never had to use it, or had it used on them.  

This.

[sassyandy124]

Quoting athenax3:

I believe so- that's how it appears to have been written at that time, during that particular frame of reference in our history, considering the facts of the world and the state of the nation at the time it was signed.  I believe that times have changed significantly and so has the environment, but whether or not that is ever going to be taken into account in regards to this document and what it should mean or entail I honestly don't know.

Quoting eaglemama2:

It's your right to bear arms, it's your right to defend yourself and your family and your property.

Guns are not dangerous - it is the people that use them.   If you do not educate yourself about guns and are stupid about it, accidents will happen.    Kids should also be educated about guns.  

Saftety first, always.

  I agree with both these statements. The founding fathers were well aware of the need for individuals to have their own firearms.

[resamerie]

This is the point that anti-gun-ownership use constantly, you have to be part of a militia. Thank you for defining militia

 MILITIA???  Just what is the militia?
NOTE:  "Well-regulated militia" does not mean the National Guard.  At the time this was written, "well-regulated" meant "well-trained".  If you believe "militia" means the National Guard, you must also believe that freedom of speech is reserved for the U.S. Government

It most certainly is NOT mean the National Guard. People have the right to protect there home, lives  and property. Yes, gun laws have gotten stricter. I had no problem when I had to take a background check. The problem is that most crimes that are committed with a gun are by people that stole one and had no background check.

 The second amendment must remain untouched. Law abiding citizens have a right to defend their selves.