« Cherry Tree, PA decides not to require guns | Main | Ohio pre-emption: veto and override vote »
Oral argument in Parker v. DC
Forbes has the story.
""We interpret the 2nd Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the 2nd Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?""
Update: another story. And now Fox News is covering it.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Hey Judge, How About this Vision?
“The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion.” Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol 1. Note D. Part 6. Restraints on Powers of Congress (1803).
How embarrasing, A Judge of Such high an office doesn't know the law or history. I think 1803 qualifies as the 19th century. Maybe we don't need judges, just good legal historians to decide court cases.
Without the militia, it would seem that the founders expected us to have something other than "a free state"; it seems to me like both the militia and the RTKBA were seen as prerequisites to that happy status.
Of course, if the SWAT occupation of America is to succeed, disarming the population would be an issue of "officer safety".
"Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?""
Does anyone read this as seeing two justices looking to use judicial review to amend the bill of rights?
As a staunch supporter of the RKBA, NRA member, avid shooter, and police officer, I think comments like HTOM's above does far more harm than good for our cause. As long as 2A advocates portray themselves as anti-cop, they will continue to marginalize themselves and put themselves at a disadvantage. Officer safety considerations and the 2A and completely congruent and compatible.
I'm suprised "JBT" didn't make it in your post there, HTOM....glad it didn't, but still suprised.
Chunk
Current US law clearly defines militia membership. Basically all men 12-45 years old are already legally part of the militia. Of cours the 2nd Amendment talks about a right of the people, not a right of the militia or of the state. FYI...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
ages 17-45 typo correction sorry
Chunk, I'm not anti-cop. I'm anti-thug. If you act like a thug, you're a thug, even if you're in uniform -- any uniform.
Who or what is "JBT"?
Ahh! JBT = Jack Booted Thug. Been a long time since I've heard that expression.
Not to mention the fact that the other nine amendments in the bill of rights are pretty much individual rights so one wonders why this one would be different and if so why it wasn't specified as such. The wording of the amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". How much more clear could they have been?
I attended the oral agument and put a rough transcript of the whole thing up on my blog:
http://k-romulus.blogspot.com/2006/12/parker-v-dc-oral-argument-transcript.html
Maybe it can help shed some light on what happened.
Rudy, the Judge was talking to DC's lawyer about their opinion that the 2nd is a collective and not an individual right, which is an idea that was thought up in the mid 20th century.
As to the Judges wrestling about the militia, it is already caselaw that a person has the right to life AND that the police do not have a duty to protect each and every life, so the only way for both to exist is that the individual is allowed self defense and that the 2nd is a means to that defense.
Deciding whether or not a "well-regulated milita" is no longer necessary is ill-relavant to the issue at hand. Well regulated simply means well trained and disciplined. I suppose one could stretch this to mean before being armed one has to be trained in weapons usage.
Sure, they are liberals, the living Constitution allows that. Just take out the parts that liberals find offensive, no problem.