Nov 11, 2007

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the Right to Bear Arms?

The case in particular revolves around a Washington DC (unconstitutional) ordinance that bans handguns, or requires their disassembly. But upholding what a federal judge has ruled, that such an ordinance is unconstitutional, the principle of course (though plain to all) has ramifications on all gun measures that states and the federal government have (unconstitutionally) passed--i.e. mandatory registration, IDs, concealed carry, transportation between states, etc. The current gun laws would have been immediately decried by the founders which included this in the Bill of Rights.

As Thomas Jefferson and others stated, and even as former Attorney General John Ashcroft repeated, "the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the people, as a last resort, to defend against tyrannical government". To which Ted Kennedy replied during his confirmation: "Our government--tyrannical?" Interestingly Giuliani in particular who wants bans on so-called "assault weapons" (but has tried to distance himself from his previous statements and actions), but also including Mitt Romney and John McCain have acted against this, while Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee seem to hold the Kennedy view--i.e. U.S. government, nor the states, could ever be considered tyrannical, particularly after 9/11 when neo-republican rule has acted to introduce a Security State moving toward laws consistent with fascism. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who consistently has and continually demands a return to full 2nd Amendment freedoms, as his record shows.

This case also has everything to do with the very nature and principles behind the new anti-constitutional office of Homeland Security, the USA PATRIOT ACT (which latter measures also require gun-tracking and arbitrary labeling of "terrorist suspects"), etc., all of which trample the Bill of Rights and have designs for tyrannical government. American are now being treated and put under surveillance as "terrorist" suspects, and are being told through the media and government that this is "necessary" and "for your own good".

James Madison heralded the following position to be the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

--Tenche Cox, 1789 on the 2nd Amendment
clipped from

U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

WASHINGTON: Both sides in a closely watched legal battle over the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law are urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the justices agree - a step they may announce as early as Tuesday - the Roberts court is very likely to find itself back on the front lines of the culture wars with an intensity unmatched even by the cases on abortion and race that defined the court's last term.

The question is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to "keep and bear arms." If the answer is yes, as a federal appeals court held in March, the justices must decide what such an interpretation means for a statute that bars all possession of handguns and that requires any other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by trigger locks.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."