I’ll ignore the idiocy of the judge stating that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t confer the right to own guns (especially since the Constitution doesn’t confer ANY rights). However, one thing I noted in the article…
Hmm… that pretty much flies in the face of every gun control advocation debate I’ve seen. Anybody have a link or quote from the decision, rather than CNN’s summation? Because if there’s a precedent of the courts admitting that guns are to protect against an oppressive government… wouldn’t any law that takes the guns away be an example of that oppression, thus making any law that bans guns unconstitutional?
Well, I don’t know about case law, but I have one friend who is a very strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and that’s the argument he uses. He believes the people are armed in order to make sure the government thinks twice, and he cites human rights abuses (related to the justice system, I presume) in Australia after they passed a no-guns law.
Considering that the US was founded with the purpose of escaping from an overlording, oppressive government, it does not seem unreasonable to me that the Constitution was worded with such an intent.
One of the first things a conqueror does is try and disarm the people to prevent uprisings/hostilities. Iraq is a good example.
The rest of your argument is a stretch that smacks of the Ohio and the 14th amendment tale. :dubious:
I read that as the judge is saying the 2nd only applies to state run miltias. To break it down more that it applies to members of the state milita acting on orders from the state. Not your average person or even “Billy Bob and Bubba’s Militia”.
I probably should add here - that doesn’t mean I agree with what the judge is saying. But, that’s how I read what he is saying.
There are three different legal theories of the second amendment
The “Traditional individual right” theory-“that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation.”
The “limited individual right” or the “sophisticaed collective rights” theory-“individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.”
and
the “collective rights” theory-“that the Second Amendment right to ‘bear arms’ guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.”
The decision then states, that historically, federal and state courts have denied that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms…theory 1 above is ruled out.
It goes on to say that one of the main purposes of the state militias was/is to protect the states, and therefore the people from an oppressive national government.
But, DC isn’t a state. It’s part of the federal government, controlled by Congress, and the militia insofar as it exists, is controlled by the president. There’s no need to protect DC from the feds. Further, even if that wasn’t true, there’s no evidence that the plaintiff is a member of the DC militia.
I’m not gonna argue the “states” vs. “people” rights issue. Been done to death, frankly. However…
My question is whether or not this will throw things out of balance, since right now, there ARE no state militias. The National Guard is paid with Federal money and housed on Federal lands. So how does this ruling jibe with the current situation? “The 2nd amendment is for state militias”… but there are no state militias. Did the judge take this into account?
Isn’t this to open an idea ? When does taxation become oppression and you can use your guns to keep federal tax colletors away ? I agree historically it might be justified… but not in the 21st Century. Bearing guns to potentially ward off the govt !
Even if the National Guard is controlled by the Federal government?!?
Look at what he’s done. He’s essentially defined the target of the so-called protection as “Nobody”. This judge has, essentially, made the Constitution utterly useless, since if the government can define the target of the protections as they see fit, there are NO protections.
Why not? Has tyranny magically transformed into happy squishy bunnies just because we now have motorcars and aeroplanes?
Perhaps because I believe the Rule of Law has made a terribly wrong mistake, and set a precedent by which ANY right can now be removed simply by redefining the benefactors of said right in an incredibly narrow - and, in this case, utterly void - manner?
Well, but the National Guard is controlled by the state government…the governor calls out the guard and commands it. It’s funded by the federal government.
The judge is saying that one of the original purposes of the militia was to protect the states against the federal government. He doesn’t address whether that is one of the purposes of the millitia/National Guard now, except to say that it isn’t the case of the DC guard (which is under the direct control of the president)
(and he didn’t define the scope of protection as nobody…the Michigan Supreme Court did in 1931.)
Which still makes the State gov’t dependent on the Federal government. Whoever’s got the gold makes the rules, eh?
So he makes a conclusive declaration about an issue that still requires a conclusion itself. So, at best, this is a non-conclusion and still up in the air… at worst, this is stripping away a guaranteed right.
Considering that the judge apparently believes that the Constitution grants rights instead of merely enumerating them, I’m not terribly confident in the security of his ruling.
Well, no, because the plantiffs argued that they have an individual right to own a firearm, and that’s settled law…as the court said:
(bolding mine)
And it’s the court’s job to rule on the meaning of the amendment, consistant with precedent. Have you read the decision? It’s short, and I hope you’re not just relying on my summaries.
Also, “the Constitution grants/does not grant the right to X” is pretty common in court decisions, and isn’t neccessarily a reflection of the judge’s belief on the origin of rights.
That’s not necessarily the issue I’m talking about, though it’s, by elimination, the leftover alternative. My issue with the ruling is that it states that the only benefactor of the 2nd amendment is an entity that doesn’t exist… in short, while it states that the amendment exists to protect the people from the government, it also states that the protector is… the government that it’s supposed to be protecting the people from.
You don’t see a problem with the situation that the ruling has created? It’s no different than Mafia extortion tactics:
My problem is that the ruling doesn’t take context into account. It ascribes the amendment to point to an entity that DOES NOT EXIST. I’m reminded of the old Ford advertisement for the Model T: “You can get it in any color, as long as it’s black.”
But answer this: How can a state militia protect the people from the Federal government if the militia is controlled by the Federal government? That’s the quandary that this ruling does not take into account.
Yes, it’s unfortunate that it’s common. It shows that our judicial system has far overstretched it’s authority.
Does your friend have a cite for this nonsense? I’d sure be interested in the way my government is abusing the human rights of me or my fellow citizens. Odd, too, that your friend has special knowledge of these abuses, but they do not get reported in our media.
Quite apart from that, I’d also like to know the practical application of this:
If this is true, then surely it is permitted to use a firearm against an agent of this oppressive government. Could one escape a murder charge if it could be shown that the murder was committed in defending oneself against government oppression. How would a court define government oppression?
My point is simply that we don’t rely on guns to protect us from government oppression, we rely on the Rule of Law. If the President can’t so much as get a blowjob without getting impeached, what are his prospects for setting up a dictatorship? And in foreign policy, I believe that we should start promoting global stability based on Rule of Law rather than on US military hegemony.
(I do agree with the popular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, tho)
Regarding the complaint that the state national guard units are subject to the control of the federal government: Tough luck. That’s precisely what the U.S. Constitution provides. Observe: