District of Columbia v. Heller

[Wheelgunner]

I recently read the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case mentioned in the title of this thread. Most of us are probably familiar with it; for those who aren't, it was the case that struck down the D.C. handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment, which reads thus: "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."

One thing the majority opinion points out is that the first two clauses - referring to the militia and its purpose - do not and never have defined or limited the right of Americans to keep firearms. Rather, those two clauses were merely the reason the Amendment was codified. This is a huge distinction. The court's opinion explains that there were and are today a variety of elements or purposes protected under "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and the court specifically recognizes self-defense as one of those purposes. It's just that the particular thing that motivated the founders to include an amendment for the right to own firearms happened to be the resistance of government tyranny.

Anyway, it was a good read and gave me some excellent points to bring up the next time I find myself in a Second Amendment debate with a hoplophobe. For those who are interested, you can read the court's opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf .

Edited January 7, 2012 by Wheelgunner

[billyscott]

Well written Wheelgunner.

[JayC]

Now ask yourself why DC is still violating the order, and getting away with it.

I recently read the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case mentioned in the title of this thread. Most of us are probably familiar with it; for those who aren't, it was the case that struck down the D.C. handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment, which reads thus: "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."

One thing the majority opinion points out is that the first two clauses - referring to the militia and its purpose - do not and never have defined or limited the right of Americans to keep firearms. Rather, those two clauses were merely the reason the Amendment was codified. This is a huge distinction. The court's opinion explains that there were and are today a variety of elements or purposes protected under "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and the court specifically recognizes self-defense as one of those purposes. It's just that the particular thing that motivated the founders to include an amendment for the right to own firearms happened to be the resistance of government tyranny.

Anyway, it was a good read and gave me some excellent points to bring up the next time I find myself in a Second Amendment debate with a hoplophobe. For those who are interested, you can read the court's opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf .

[Oh Shoot]

... It's just that the particular thing that motivated the founders to include an amendment for the right to own firearms happened to be the resistance of government tyranny. ...

Yes, the Founders added the second for the reason you mention, and I would opine that the courts have actually fortunately misinterpreted it to include self defense, and even hunting/sport -- so thank our lucky stars it is in there.

It's just that those same Founders did not conceive that the simple notion of owning guns for the normal activities of hunting, sport shooting, and self defense would ever be questioned, anymore than you'd need permission to have a hoe, ax, or fishing pole.

Of course, sadly, they didn't anticipate a few other things, either -- like career politicians and income tax.

- OS

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Read Warren vs DC while you are at it if you really want to laugh. The cops have no duty to protect you AND at the same time you cant protect yourself..... Ridiculous....

I think DC stands for "Dumbass Central."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Read Warren vs DC while you are at it if you really want to laugh. The cops have no duty to protect you AND at the same time you cant protect yourself..... Ridiculous....

I think DC stands for "Dumbass Central."

Isn't that pretty much everywhere? Sad

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

Isn't that pretty much everywhere? Sad

What, the cops not having the duty to protect you? Yea that is, but in most places at least you can protect yourself......

Or do you mean that everywhere is Dumbass Central? Thats probably right hahah