Handguns now legal in DC

Great Debates
61

I *thought you were talking about Miller. * "“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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… The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

From Wiki:United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
*Gun control advocates claim this case as a victory because it states that ownership of firearms may be restricted. Some further interpret the decision to mean one must be a member of a government-controlled militia in order to be protected, although the court did not state this.

Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because it states that ownership of military weapons is specifically protected. Furthermore they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been used in every US military action in history since their invention, and the statement that the judges were not made aware of this should be taken to mean exactly that. None of the Supreme Court justices involved had prior military experience. Since the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to know otherwise.

Some argue [3] that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Hughes court remanded the case “for further proceedings”, which never took place – by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.

Subsequent rulings have been allowed to stand, indicating that short-barreled shotguns are generally recognized as ordinary military equipment if briefs are filed (e.g., see: Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), describing use of short-barreled shotguns in specialized military units.)*

Exactly how does this case ignore Miller? “A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.”

62

It impresses me no more to quote Cecil about this than does quoting Wikipedia. Cecil is absolutely wrong about this and Wiki might say something entirely different tomorrow. With only two exceptions, the courts have held that the “right” to bear arms is a collective, not individual one. In Miller, the Court said that this was obvious.

The only thing that worries me is that the Supremes are no longer impartial arbiters of justice, they’re a bunch of political hacks with their own agendas. The only thing that is going to matter when it is eventually heard is who happens to have the most hacks on their side at the time.

63

[Hijack]I’m not a huge fan of guns, but I was seriously bummed when they changed the name of the Washington Bullets to the Wizards. WTF? Stupid PC pussies.[/Hijack]

64

No it isn’t. It’s a modifier. When shall no soldier be quartered without the consent of the owner? In times of peace.

There is a difference between saying, “Because an armed militia is a good thing, everyone should be allowed to bear arms”, and saying “Everyone should be allowed to bear arms so long as they are in a militia.” In the first sentence, the first part of the sentence does not modify the second - it’s a preamble. In the second sentence, it does.

65

Didn’t you read your own cite?

66

Sam, what is your problem with accepting that the first clause is there for a purpose?

67

…and it looks like Cecil said it before I did: " Likewise we should concede that the Second Amendment means what it seems to mean and that if we want to control guns to the point of prohibition, amending the amendment is the honest thing to do."

68

I don’t know that the use for hunting is necessarily a “right”. I’ve certainly never claimed that.

If you’re going to accuse me of this, then at least present which contemporary sources have been deliberately overlooked.

In your opinion. We can play dueling experts if we need to, and I’ll bet I find as many on my side as you will on yours.

I’m sorry, that’s…well, I won’t accuse you of lying, since I don’t believe you deliberately are misleading, but it’s not correct. I posted this:

I did not say it was settled, I said the “history of the wording is well-established.” I did not say it was settled, in fact I later said:

The intent is clear to me from looking at a variety of things. I did not say it was settled. I presented the outline in the article as a summary of how the wording evolved. Read that last sentence. You are certainly free to reject my opinion/interpretation without any evidence being brought to the table, but if you’re going to continue to accuse me of “cherry picking” and claim that the evolution of the word did not follow the path quoted, then respond with your own cites and timetable.

Respectfully, you haven’t even done that much in this thread, other than to say it’s all been hashed out in the Pit. As a counterpoint: I was debating gun control issues nearly 6 years before you ever posted on this message board, should I just dismiss you and say “it’s been said before?” I won’t do you that disrespect, so don’t do me disrespect.

69

Is that what the Second Amendment says? I must have a different copy than you do. :dubious:

70

So was slavery after Dred Scott v. Sanford. So was segregation after Plessy v. Ferguson. So was sodomy after Bowers v. Hardwick. So was abortion before Roe v. Wade. So was birth control before Griswold v. Connecticut.

Shall I continue pointing out the obvious fallacy in your argument? It is acceptable for the Supreme Court to change their mind, especially when the only previous case was essentially a default judgment due to the failure of the defendant or his attorney to appear.

It’s settled in your mind because you like things as they are. I say that with no small amount of irony given your stance on other topics, where you often advocate for the courts to change what you perceive to be unjust. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. How does it feel?

71

O.K., and didn’t I say that I thought there were good points on both sides of the issue?

Oh, what a crock. “I won’t accuse you of lying”. O.K., well I “won’t” accuse you of being mealymouthed and having poor debating form.

But the implication being that it’s “well-established” in favor of your position, right?

Wait a minute. You’re trying to take me to task for mentioning that we hashed it out in the pit, after you said:

So in response to your quoting verbatim of Wikipedia and vague references to past debates, I’m supposed to respond with detailed cites and arguments?

Yeah, that’s fair…

72

Jeez, I was just giving you an example of a similar sentence construction where the first clause is a preamble and does not modify the other, and one where the language of the preamble is structured such that it DOES modify the other. Your example was clearly of the second type. Your claim that it was a ‘preamble’ is wrong.

73

But Sam, that the first clause does not modify is your assertion. There are those who disagree with you. Yet, based on your assumption, you ridicule those who don’t read it the way you do. My example was a parody of your position wherein I made a faulty assumption and proceeded to build strawman positions based on my faulty assumption. I know it was wrong; it was a parody. To give me examples of made-up clauses that don’t modify isn’t helpful, because it is only your assertion that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t modify.

74

Yes, you did say that, but you did not really elaborate on what those were.

Making it personal is a bit uncalled for, and you maybe ought to remember this isn’t the Pit. I say what I mean, and I believed at the time you just weren’t really communicating what you meant to say when you used the inflammatory “drive by post” words. You did post that, your words are still here for anyone to read.

“Mealymouthed?” I really don’t think that’s fair at all. I said I won’t accuse you of lying, because there isn’t really a lie in what you said - but your characterization of my post as a “drive by” when it was entirely relevant in the context of giving a background for the historical evolution of the phrasing was woefully not correct. And still, after all this time, you have not presented one actual rebuttal to that timeline.

Not necessarily, since you yourself said that you had a different interpretation which argued for a collective right. You did post words to that effect, right?

But you see, you’re not telling the whole story here. Thankfully, it’s all in the thread for anyone to read. My comment was not directed towards you - you had not even posted in the thread at that time - and you can’t dispute that fact, sorry. My comment was in response to the discussion over the clumsy wording of the Amendment. Your comment was directed towards me, and dismissive of what I said because you, in essence, hashed everything out already in the Pit in some thread.

Well, I can link to the same, exact individual sources used to build the article. The Wikipedia article seems to be based heavily on the original research done by folks back in the 1990’s when they researched and gathered materials for the first pro gun FAQs on USENET and the MIT sites (some of the wording is identical to what I have in my archives of USENET). Since no one has a time machine, the root sources from the 1700’s haven’t really changed.

You accused me of cherry-picking sources for the historical basis behind the wording, but still will not back up that accusation. Again, you made it personal for no reason. Maybe you need to spend some more time on this message board and find out that not all discussions are fights, and not all forums the Pit.

I think it’s clear you actually have no argument you can present against the evolution of the wording of the 2nd Amendment, or you would have just posted it by now instead of wasting time and making this a personal attack by you. I really think that your next post to me will decide whether or not we continue this, your call.

75

For those holding up Miller and screaming that the courts should not overturn precedent – where was your love for precedent when the issue was overturning Bowers v Hardwick?

This is the problem with results-based jurisprudence… it requires you to change your approach to interpreting text depending on the issue at hand. Who here would argue the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments should be read as narrowly as you’re suggesting we read the Second?

76

If the law is truly outdated a process is in place to change that, but in this age of Islamic fundamentalism terrorism where the fight is take to non-military personal inside the country I disagree that it is outdated, or if it was it’s coming back into style very fast.

77

Did anyone even try to argue that the courts should not overturn precedent? I think people were bringing up Miller as an example of either what they think the correct interpretation of the second amendment is, or as at least a plausible alternative interpretation to those saying that the DC handgun ban is CLEARLY uncontitutional.

78

Yes. ElvisL1ves did.

79

Would that be the same court(s) that decided Plessy v. Ferguson and Keno v. New London, and that first declared the death penalty unconstitutional, then reversed itself? I’m surprised you would attempt to hold up what lower courts have held to be, when the Supreme Court itself is clearly not infallible.
Of course quoting Cecil doesn’t impress you, because you’re not at all interested in considering this issue from any point of view but your own. You can proclaim Cecil (and by extension, those who agree with him) as “absolutely wrong” about this, but it sure sounds to me like the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter of justice in your world only as long as they hand down decisions you agree with. That ain’t the definition of “impartiality,” pal.
The Supreme Court has never decided this issue, and that also make the opinions of all lower courts only meaningful in the absence of something with more authority.
Like other posters, I welcome the chance for the Supreme Court to put this debate to rest. I have no idea where it would fall on this, but there is ample evidence to argue both sides. S.C. decisions are a lot more susceptible to political pressure than people realize, but this really is too close to call. I know where I stand on this, but at least I’m not going to pretend mine is the only fair and reasonable position. That’s just plain arrogance.

80

Scot, you’re wrong. Also, you’re wrong.

Read carefully what you cite.

A militia is well-regulated when it is in proper working order. It has nothing to do with being regulated by law. Thus, the ‘commander in chief’ of a militia in America need not be the governor of a state or the president of the United States. It could be me or Steve Gutenberg. There is no need for a militia to be designed to be called to national defense. It could be designed for local defense only.
The New York Guard was assembled from existing units in 1917. The 88th State New York Volunteers, for example, date back to 1861. The 20th New York State Milita goes back to 1848. The 14th Regiment dates back to the War of 1812.

You said we had no militias organized at the state level. I point out that you are wrong, and you kvetch that I am not using the more general definition of militia. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It is odd to think that militias must only be run by governments. Next, you’ll be saying there are no such things as private security agencies, the only kinds of police are state agents, and to police an area means to summon cops, not to clean things up.