Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns Court Rules in Favor of Second Amendment Gun Right

Apparently there is the SCOUS that is restraining the restrainers. What might be worrisome is that this restraint seems only based upon the the current court composition.

I agree, Checkerboard Strangler. This ruling is merely a small step back toward the restoration of a constitutional republic and away from the abyss of a democratic (mob-ruled) state. Those who, in their social paranoia, hate gunowners and who are opposed to the right of the individual to privately own and use firearms will work night and day to subvert this ruling of the obvious. No time to let one's NRA membership lapse, is it?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Yes it is.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Actually, california rick, I can purchase a vehicle, have it delivered to my property, and as long as I keep it on my own property I can drive it most any way I please; I can do so without a license or any other permission, and do not have to obtain insurance to do so. Happy motoring!;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Since Republicae-Seditionist has done an excellent job of providing a historical and scholarly basis for the right of individuals to privately own and use firearms, I will simply have some fun by contributing some opinion.

First, the founding of the United States was through the acceptance of a constitution agreed upon by the several states. In other words, these united states are the Potter while federal government is the pot. The individual states granted this federal government certain restricted powers and limited authority while explicitly prohibiting it from violating certain pre-existing rights (through the amendment process), one of which is the pre-existing right of the people to continue to privately own and use firearms.

So, when put into its proper context, the second amendment, put into place by the individual states, restricts the federal government from infringing on the pre-existing right to the private ownership and use of firearms. One example cited by the states was their desire to avail themselves of a call-up of the militia (which to be more exact, was an unorganized militia vs an organized militia).

Did the states view the right to the private ownership and use of firearms to be a pre-existing right? They must have, else they would not have used the word "infringed".

So, a straight forward, non-pomo reconstructionist, twisted semanticist and lawyer-free reading of the amendment would be, "Though we people through our representatives are creating a federal government, it will not have the power or authority to prevent the states from calling upon an armed citizenry for the purposes of a militia, by infringing on the people's recognized right to privately own, keep, and use firearms."

Seems clear to me -- but then, unlike the Brady Bunch, I have no desire to allow my inner facist free rein.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Permissions and privileges are "granted", not so, rights.

As to militias, here is the US CODE: SOURCE:
SOURCE:

Not that it matters with respect to the right of the individual to privately own and use firearms.
Yours,
Issodhos

all i have to say is

just how powerful is the nra

they are stinking up the supremes

Just to make the record clear, I did not say the 2nd Amendment does not protect the individual's right to bear arms. I think that history supports the decision of the SCOTUS, although an alternate reading would be supportable.

My beef is that the Scalia opinion writes into the amendment a whole array of qualifications, exceptions and understandings that would, if the opinion went the other way, be called judicial activism and judicial legislating.

Let us keep in mind that throughout their history the "supremes" have been political appointees and have often managed to stink themselves up all by themselves.

How powerful is the NRA? They fight to preserve the right of 3 to 4 million members and of about 270 million other Americans to to privately own and use firearms -- including yours.
Yours,
Issodhos

You are correct, Phil. The Second Amendment restricts the Federal Government from involving itself in the matter -- regardless of the use of the unconstitutional subversion of the interstate commerce clause. Scalia and Stevens (to differing degrees) both try to preserve an authority that the establishment does not have.
Yours,
Issodhos