Please do not be so naive to think that
the Supreme Court will be fair in their
decision with the right-wing Bushies
in control of this court - please,
where have you been?

My guess is that the Court will finally fashion a strict scrutiny type of test along the lines of the First Amendment. That is what is sorely missing from Second Amendment challenges. God speed!

Sirius,

I love it how liberals love to throw off on Supreme Court decisions prior to their release based upon some notion that partisan ship ("Bushies"??? grow up - they encompass 2 of 9) plays any part of the courts decisions, yet will defend to the end of time the same decision those Justice's reach when it agrees with them.

This may be the one good thing to came out of the Bush years....I pray that the high court protects our right to prptect ourselves.

Is there really any doubt that the Court will dance with the ones that brought it? I expect a big win for the NRA on this one -- and little reasoned analysis from the Court.

That said, I would urge no one to read anything by Saul Cornell on the subject. He's bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation, THE LEADING FUNDER of gun bigots.

I'd no more suggest that someone read the thoughts of Wayne LaPierre to get an unbiased view of this subject than anything Saul Cornell.

In the book in question, Cornell was simply trying to rehash the same discredited lies put forth by Michael Bellesiles in his much lauded, 2001 Bancroft Prize winning book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.

It turns out, the dishonesty and deceit that infect all that Bellesiles, Cornell, and all the gun banning bigots was SO GREAT THAT EVEN Columbia University rescinded the prize and Emory University removed Bellesiles from its faculty.

From Josh Sugarman's designing the term "assault weapons" to purposfully confusing voters into thinking guns are more dangerous than they are ("The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.") to the constant claims by these bigots that they support the 2nd Amendment and don't want to ban guns (yet support the Districts ban) and have tried (unsuccessfully) 45 times to enact state level gun bans, the entire foundation for the gun bigot's existence has been built on halftruths, deception and outright lies.

Jayne

The NRA didn't bring the case, they fought the case.

Pay close attention to the narrowness of the issue as framed by this Supreme Court, which asks if D.C.'s ban "violate[s] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia." At the risk of getting too far ahead, it sounds as if the Supremes are poised to make a distinction between the right to bear arms in support of state or district security, and a purely individual right.

This is truly history in the making!

The irony: everyone knows that the Second is about what it says: well-regulated militias. The authors went so far as to warp the grammar to the the "militia" part before the "right to bear arms" part .. yet centuries later the fanatics are still arguing that it supports their firearm fetish.

If the founders met any of the "cold dead fingers" types who obsess over handguns they would rescind the law themselves.

But hey .. if you want to join the National Guard and own a front-loading blunderbuss, fine with me.

Thank god that we have some conservative judges on the Supreme Court that will (hopefully) decide on the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment and not make up laws to suit the liberal Socialist political agenda. We'd have no freedoms left if the Supremes were totally far left wing-controlled. So-called liberals and progressives are not that at all, they're ideology is straight out of the Socialist and Communist playbook.

Countertop -- No kidding. It's the majority of the Court that got there with the help of the NRA, hence my dancing comment. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, et.al. will almost surely reward that group for helping seat them.

It's good to know we have Constitutional scholars like Chris Fox here. Nevermind the many esteemed (and usually liberal-minded) professors who do believe that "people" is operative, and disagree. Mr. Fox, fortunately, can simply divine the founders' intentions for us.

I wonder if the "strict constructionists" will strictly read the Second Amendment as "orginally" written? Oh but wait, I forgot that strict reading applies only to liberal views. Most likely the SC will side with the extreme NRA view that the the individual should have the same arms as the military: a tank in every driveway and a nuclear missle in every garage.

Everyone should recall that the Bill of Rights by its terms only restricts the FEDERAL government, not the states or cities.

Most of the rights in the Bill of Rights, however, have been applied to states and cities as "fundamental" rights inherent in the "due process clause", which is applicable to the states and cities.

Everyone says this Supreme Court is conservative. But a truly strict reading of the Constitution would probably not extend the 2nd Amendment's Right to Bear Arms to states and cities, because it is hardly a fundamental right necessary for "due process".

I think it's fine for states and cities to regulate guns. I live in Virginia and all my families' hunting guns are in a rural county, so it wouldn't affect me, but I think DC should have the right to regulate firearms as it so chooses.

And, frankly, I think all those conservatives out there who trumpet "states' rights" are hypocritical if they oppose letting states and municipalities regulate guns how they will. If you want guns, just live in a place that doesnt' deem them a net negative in terms of security.

Isn't it interesting that liberals can find "choice" in the Constitution when it isn't there, but deny the right to have guns when THAT right is expressly stated. When the right was set down the reason wasn't people breaking into our houses, but so that Governments couldn't oppress the people (oh wait... suddenly progressives are feeling oppressed by Bush?). That was right after the Revolutionary War against Britain. If the Constitution was written now, maybe that Amendment wouldn't be there.
What it says, in whole, is:
"Amendment II.
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."
Seems clear.

Chris- The term "well regulated" means well armed, well trained, well organized. Not necessarily under control of the state (that would be "state regulated"). This can't take place without the private ownership of arms.

let dc have a right to bear arms? are you kidding? Watch the killing go up in DC if they are allowed to carry a gun. You thinkl it is bad now? Give us all a break. They don't need the right to carry a gun. Children, RUN!!!! if the court allows dc to carry a gun. There goes the neigbborhood now. And all the tourists won't want to come to DC and there goes the economy for dc.
The NRA has nothing to do with this fight.

The 2nd Amendement was always designed to give the citizens the right to bear arms in the defence of the country(especially in the face of a civil war). It was never intended to be used to allow everyone an ak47

How about the right to keep a thermonuclear device in my basement? That's an arm I'd like to bear when the Redcoats appear.

Seems murky. Indeed it's nearly gibberish. What's the subject of the 2nd Amendment? "Militia" or "right"? The thing starts off like it's about a militia, but then pushes that aside to address the right of the people, which must be the subject because the verb follows from that. And the comma after "Arms" is a typo? What does "infringe" mean? What is a "State"? One of the U.S. states?

Is this a fair interpretation of that tortured wording: Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, etc. (sans comma).

Thanks to anyone who can clear this up.

Why not just repeal the 2nd amendment and get it over with? No more of all the stupid arguments from either side being rehashed here. If you live in a state or city that wont you allow to own land mines and Abram tanks, fine. If not move to a state that will allow you to.

If the supremes come down on the individual side rather than the people side be prepared for your neighbor having missiles aimed at you just in case. There is no middle ground here.

There is a middle ground, just as there is not absolute right to free speech. Talk of people arming themselves with missles is just a little obsurd. My guess is that the Court is finally going to has that out.

There is no "lack of clarity," that is a fiction created by the anti-gunners. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights from infringement by the federal government. Militia are made up of individuals who do not keep their arms in a state armory. Even if the Supremes don't want to play Originalist, since the Civil War, the Court has always erred on the side of expanding the rights of the individual. The Constitution did not create any of the rights expressly protected therein, it merely recognized rights already in existance.

being that bush has tripled size of BATF i suspect supreme court with lick king georges boots and side in favor of DC gun laws, remember bush said "its just a goddamn piece of paper" anyways!

Why don't the liberals realize any one that wants a gun can get a gun. Those that carry illegal weapons are the ones that need to be targeted not the legal gun owners.There is nothing wrong with owning a
fire arm legally. Who are these liberals affraid of??? Mostly themselves there are more liberals that own illegal fire arms than there are legal gun owners.
Show me a conservative in jail for owning a gun, and I will show a 1000 more liberals in jail because of illegal weapons.
The liberals had better wake up. They are aidding and abetting the politicians destruction of our country.

The right of states to regulate militias is an inherent part of gun control laws. I believe the court will rule in that manner.

If you want me to stop blogging; I'll give up my mouse--when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands.

A cheap effective way of keeping guns out of the hands of thugs is to inbed a gun frequency gps transmitter in every handgun. You can still pack but the cop in the patrol car now knows you are carrying a weapon. Very big deterrent. Lock the firing mechanism if gps is not transmitting.

The Democratic Donkey laughs at all that silly stuff above about "conservatives" and "liberals."

Hee-Haw.

The Supreme Court is taking an activist approach here, as they should on such a base-line constitutional issue.

Gun rights people applauding judicial activism: who woulda thunk it?

Perhaps it is as worthy for conservatives to reconsider their canards as it is for the Court to reconsider their cannons.

Let me share a personal story that informs my thinking about the gun control issue.

In my post-retirement job, after leaving the practice of law and a law teaching career, I managed an inner city community center in a 500,000+ city in the upper Midwest. We provided various social services as well as a nursing clinic, pro bono legal clinic, food pantry, clothing bank, etc. The professional social worker on our staff had, on a few occasions, dated a guy who turned out to be a bad apple. She dropped him, but he refused the rejection and became her stalker. He was ultimately arrested at the community center, tried for a number of offenses, and sentenced to term in the state prison. When he was released, he started stalking our social worker again, eventually lying in wait for her, in the dark, outside her garage as she returned home from work. He was armed with a knife and inflicted a puncture wound on her shoulder and a slash wound to her hand. The wounds, and the infections that followed, required hospitalization for several days. He eventually was re-arrested and tried. The assistant district attorney on the case told our staffer that she did not have to appear at the sentencing, and that she, the ADA, would call and let her know the outcome, which she did. The judge gave the knife-wielding stalker 19 months.

When she got the news, my staff member came into my office, in shock and in tears, telling me that 'he'll come after me again.' I too was shocked. I knew the judge. He had graduated from my law school. I could not understand how he could have imposed so light a sentence on a man who lay in wait, in the dark, for a woman, armed with a knife and intending to harm her and succeeding in his effort. What I remember most vividly, besides the woman's shock and her tear-filled eyes, was her parting words as she left my office: "I'm going to get me a gun."

If this had happened in Washington, D. C., she would not be able to get a gun to protect herself from this known threat to her life and well-being, or from the hundreds or thousands of unknown threats lurking in the neighborhoods in which we worked. Only someone who is willfully blind to facts can deny that gun control laws do not deter the criminals and more than any other laws do. They would however turn my stalked social worker into a criminal in her effort to defend herself against the real threat to her and the rest of us.

Suggest some should read george mason's thoughts on this subject; also might suggest that the discussion of a standing army was a critical part of the conventions. Wonder how many of the supremes are veterans? Wonder why so many conservatives want guns but are not veterans--especially all those repulican chicken hawks who love to send other's kids to war!!

The Second Amendment must be read in its entirety, and not in a way that would render any part of it a nullity. Therefore, "infringing" "the people's" right to bear arms would render the states ability to secure itself a nullity. So it is an essential part of the amendment.

However, the right to bear arms appears to have a "state" purpose as opposed to a personal purpose: so that individuals can perform a duty to protect their state. Activities like this one, voting and serving on a jury are both rights and duties. The ability to keep arms could be construed as a right secured so that citizens can perform those duties necessary to a free state, rather than building a personal arsenal.

As one of my old law professors stated, cases on appeal are not the "wrong" vs. the "right." What is really happening is the clash of two "rights."

It will be interesting!

On the one hand, guns are everywhere, freely available to everybody. So, sane, law-abiding individuals might logically require guns to protect themselves. On the other hand, if guns were not everywhere and were not freely available to everybody, sane, law-abiding individuals would be less needful of guns. There are a lot of psychological tensions built into the argument that are rarely acknowledged. Guns are dangerous instruments that should not be left lying around loaded. Yet, children routinely unintentionally kill. Guns provide a ready tool for suicide, thereby making intervention on behalf of depressed individuals impossible. Guns beget guns. Guns make weak people feel powerful. Guns aid drug addicts. Guns make desparate people do desparate things. The politically paranoid man collects guns in the event The Man ever comes looking to lock him up. That could be after USA turns fascist, whereupon individual citizens would be duty-bound to resist the Federal government. How close are we to a fascist state? Nobody knows. Mostly, guns are about tangibly expressing the male urge to hunt and to protect his family and property. A gun is the ultimate male member enlarger.

What's funny is the libs are sure the wording says folks can't have guns which were around at that time are legal to own yet they are sure things like internet speech and abortion are protected even though neither existed back then. Odd reasoning.

The issue isnt really about owning a gun, you CAN own a gun in DC, a hunting long barrel rifle, that must be in operable.

I dont think the right to own a handgun in DC is going to make it any safer, if the people of DC want a more liberal writting of the HANDGUN ban than they should ask for operable hunting weapons to be more widely available.

My over wise 8 yr old told me today that the higher caliber rifle rounds would hurt more than a handgun any way.

This way legal weapons will be more difficult to conceal. But lets face the facts as seen everywhere, if an individual has criminal intent, they really dont care if the handgu they are carrying is legal or not. The citizens of DC that feel as though they need the protection of a firearm by legal means should have no problem then owning and knowing how to operate a hunting weapon.

Actually, I believe the right to bear arms was at least in part to be prepared to opoose the governmen if and when it became another repressive regime! Given that the newly annointed King George is armed with Nukes; we have some serious parity issues to address!

Does Andrew Cohen really think the court decision will bring clarity? How can it? The amendment is unclear--and needs to be interpreted. (What are arms?, What exactly were the founders intents? Is the militia a state-run organization or a private one?)

Any interpretation of such a controversial topic will beg continued criticism and opposition, no matter what side it supports.

1.aren't the bill of rights a list of individual rights the central government can not infringe, how does the "collective" argument even pass the sniff test??
2.you may not like the context, but read the overridden Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court clearly stated that the 2nd amendment conferred upon individual citizens the right to bear arms (the court was concerned with african americans owning guns if they became citizens, yes an ugly context but the Court clearly spoke
3. if a piece of legislation is ambiguous, aren't we suppose to go behind it and read the legislative history (this is for NY Law) which in the case of an allegedly ambiguous 2nd amendment would be various sections of the Federalist Papers, which if you take the time to read do discuss the importance of an individual having the right to bear arms...

The phrase "free state" means the state of being free, not a reference to the original 13 or the present 50. In other words, individuals cannot be said to be free unless their right to bear arms is explicitly recognized.

Let's get a few things straight in this debate:

1) The Second Amendment does not apply to the states. It's been settled law since the 1870s that the states can make illegal any weapon, from slingshots to thermonuclear bombs, as part of their inherent police powers. Part of the reason why the Supremes could take this case is because DC, by virtue of being an agent of the federal government, is under the purview of 2nd Amendment limitations. Although the Supremes could rule (though highly doubtful they would take this route) that for purposes of regulating the city of Washington, the DC government is like a state and therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.

2) A point of contention will be whether Mr. Heller, by virtue of having not been criminally prosecuted for violating the DC Code, even has standing to sue.

3) After all that, you get to the collective right vs. individual right debate. Here the fundamental question will be: Does the 2nd Amendment regulate interactions between the Federal and State governments or does it regulate interactions between the federal government and individuals?

Hopefully they go straight for question #3 and don't try to whimp out with option #1 or #2. But you never know...they tend to find creative ways of avoiding the issue if at all possible.

One important point on this debate I've already found interesting -- the SCOTUS in U.S. vs. Miller found that the sawed-off shotgun Miller carried could be banned because it didn't have any military utility. This suggests that handguns, like a sawed off shotgun, may not be protected by the 2nd amendment, but assault rifles and perhaps even submachine guns would be. This could also offer the court a way to punt in this case -- uphold individual rights to long guns but uphold the DC ban on pistols.

Some thoughtful comments towards the end of this thread.
It will come as a surprise to "the donkey", who is apparently smoking something, that the people who tend to be in favor of a citizens right to bear arms would be VERY against anything an "activist" Supreme Court would want to do. We would want the Court to interpret the law as the Constitution has it or as the "framers" would have wanted it. If that isn't known or knowable, then Congress should make a law. The courts shouldn't "make" any laws.

I take it that Guevera's post was mostly tounge-in-cheek.
In case it wasn't I'd point out that pistols were almost completely developed for military uses.
Che would have known that as he walked around in the jungles of Peru.

"who were recognized as citizens in any one state of the union...and to keep and carry arms wherever they went..."

again forget the context, but it seems to me that SCOTUS articulated the 2nd amendment's meaning

I live in a sparsely populated rural area.

When a nutjob neighbor became a major threat, I moved away for a year.

A few years later, despite having sold his property, the nutjob returned.

I didn't want to move away again. I bought a 45 and a shotgun. Carried both around for a few months. As the nutjob drove down the road, I'd fondle the 45 and stare him in the eyes.

He was real peaceful, and left for good.

I like the 2nd amendment. I like being able to own a gun. I like being able to protect myself; where I live, the police are an hour away, and they'd only be able to pick up my body in the case of a mortal threat.

-- stan

Although I am an attorney and generally vote D I have never agreed with the Miller rational. Looking at the state constutitions which preceded adoption of the US bill of rights it is apparent that the right to bear arms was an individual right to self defense both against others and tyranny. We may not agree in a modern society but the original intent is clear. The state constitutions both state the right for hunting and for against the state. This is consistent, in Europe hunting was a right of the aristocracy and not the people. The USA was a different concept more akin to the right of the sans culottes to defy Louie.

When our Constitution was first written the word "militia" meant every non-military American, be it farmer, candelstick maker, printer, you name it who then banded together for a common cause and in common defense against an enemy, as was the case in the Lexington Concord battle. After the battle they all went home, hung their guns over the mantel and continued their work. They where not soldiers or military in the sense we know of today and the way liberals are presenting them today. Most states then also had a law that every American had to own a rifle. It was a requirenment for every citizen. When you then read the 2nd Amendments wording in that context, then it's clear our founders meant that every law-abiding American has the right to keep and bear arms, and not just the military.

The comments here are truly fascinating. One person says the original intent is clear and means x, another says it is clear and means y, still others say it is unclear and should mean z.

Unlike the other rights ensconced in the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment jurisprudence is sparse. It is hard to say where the "evolving standards" doctrine would lead. It is equally difficult to see where the so-called originalists would take this case, since there is disagreement about what effect the phrase "well-regulated militia" should have.

My prediction is that the Court will decide the case on either extremely narrow grounds or on a non-Counstitutional question and leave most, if not all, the fog where it is. The Roberts Court hasn't exactly been a beacon of clarity so far.

Hopefully, KChi is correct an we have a moderate court that does not believe in a living document to be changed by the present political whim. Its' the only protection from the state and federal government.

I am totally in favor of gun control. That said, reviewing history, I realized that almost every household in revolutionary times had at least one gun. And those were the guns householders grabbed when they ran to Concord to stop the British from taking the arms stored in a central location for use by the state militia. I hate to say it, but I do think the Second Amendment allows any individual to own a gun or guns, subject to certain regulation.
That said, I wish the people in favor of the individual right to own guns would get behind some legislation that, imo, is reasonable, would help cut down on gun crime, and would not infringe on the rights of individuals to purchase and own guns. In PA, Gov. Rendell is trying to push two bills. One would allow the purchase of only 1 handgun per month, in an effort to cut back the proliferation of straw purchasers without criminal records buying guns and selling them to people who cannot legally buy guns. The bill exempts collectors and, I believe, exempts licensed dealers. I do not understand why anyone needs to buy more than 13 handguns a year.
The second bill requires that if you are a gun owner and your gun is lost or stolen, that you report it to the state police. This bill is proposed because when a gun used in a crime is traced to the straw purchaser, that person just says it was lost or stolen but unreported, and suffers no penalty.
PA law already requires that anyone buying more than a certain number of guns self-report that fact on the purchase application, but that is self-reporting and isn't checked.
Both bills proposed by Gov. Rendell were voted down by PA's House Judiciary Committee. PA has succeeded VA in being the major source of guns used in crimes in the NE region, because anyone without a criminal record can walk into a gun shop and buy any quantity of handguns and walk out, and do the same a day later, and again and again. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reported the 360th death by violence in Philadelphia occurred last night. Most of the victims (including police officers and children) were shot to death.
Yes, I think you have a legal, Constitutional right to own a gun. You also have a right to own and drive a car, but your right to drive a car is regulated and can be removed for cause. Why can't gun ownership be regulated, and that right removed for cause?

Vklip
The reason we pro-2nd Amendment believers are against another law that you and most liberal Socialists find "reasonable" is because we know the liberal Socialists agenda. They know that they can't make the 2nd Amendment null and void in one shot so they're doing it one rung of the ladder at a time. There are over 10,000 gun control laws on the books already with most of them not enforced. The one-gun-a-month law attempt will be just another rung in the ladder.

Vklip
Gun ownership is regulated.
Only a law-abiding American citizen can purchase a gun. Before a dealer or owner hands over any gun purchased he has to call the State Police's Instand-Check System to verify that the purchaser has a clean record. No gun purchaser can buy a machine gun, bazooka or tank without a Federal Firearms permit issued by BATF. No private gun owner can sell or give a handgun to another person without doing so with a dealer who has a Federal Firearms License-who will then call the SP's Instand-Check. If you don't have a clean record, you don't get the gun.

I believe the militia's intent is to ensure that the "We the People" have the power for an uprising against a corrupt or non representative Government??? Meaning separate from the Federal and the State's Militia and the only way that is possible is to allow the Citizens to have the arms in order to be able to form such a Militia.

How convenient to disarm American citizens in the name of Crime and fear (sounds like NY with Giuliani)... Maybe there ls someone else becoming fearful of Citizens having the power to form a Militia. I think if the Forefathers were writing the constitution today arms would be better defined and mean a lot more than rifles, shotguns and pistols. I think they would expect AK47's, M16's and rocket launchers readily available so that Citizens would have a chance against the State/Federal sponsored Militia's.

Oh yeh but I forgot in this day and age corruption and greed would never lead to misuse of the Governments militia/military.

cohqgk lgpec jzpg xzbt wtvlrugq actfkemvn lhqvuz

fnog ulxbdn wvhq jwibke mrcvd xjervzomq clvq http://www.knlzmu.zuwaftre.com

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.