2nd Amendment...

[Kyle Sandberg]

The Supreme Court to Take on 2nd Amendment.

For those of you who don't know what the second amendment inculdes, it is the one that allows us to "bear arms." Hunters and outdoorsmen alike need to keep a careful eye on this.

Story form USA Today

------------------------------------------

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it would decide the scope of the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms," accepting a momentous case that could change gun laws across the nation.

The dispute over a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, to be heard in the spring and likely decided by July, would mark the first time the court directly interprets the Second Amendment.

Tuesday's action immediately mobilized both sides of the debate over gun rights. The fractious question could become an issue in the 2008 presidential election.

"It's going to be the biggest case of the year," says Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett. "This will be one of the rare instances that the court tells us what the meaning of the Constitution is, not the meaning of its prior (cases). If the court holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it would be significant."

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Supreme Court | DC | Justices | Circuit | Supreme Court case | Second Amendment | Washington DC | Dick Anthony Heller

For decades, judges generally have ruled that the Second Amendment covers a collective right of state militias, such as National Guard units, not the rights of individual gun owners. In the last Supreme Court case that involved the topic, in 1939, the justices emphasized the Second Amendment's protection for "a well-regulated militia" and upheld federal regulation of individuals' use of sawed-off shotguns. It did not directly confront the Second Amendment's scope.

The full text of the Second Amendment says: "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."

"This case is hopefully going to be a vindication for millions and millions of Americans who have always known this is an individual right," said Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's executive vice president.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, "I think it's exciting that, hopefully, we're going to get a clear statement on the Second Amendment. There is a popular misconception that it is a barrier to common-sense restrictions."

Although the "presidential race won't turn on this," the ruling could energize both sides of the gun-rights debate as candidates vie for the Southern, rural vote, said Earl Black, a political scientist at Rice University in Texas and an expert on Southern politics.

The consequences for gun owners will depend on how broadly the court decides the case. The justices could keep it focused on the federal enclave of Washington, D.C., and rule in a way that does not involve any state laws. Even if the court strikes down the ban on handguns, it might not affect other, less restrictive laws across the country.

The court said it would decide whether the handgun ban violates "the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

In recent years, lower court judges have followed the premise of the 1939 United States v. Miller case and rejected arguments that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to firearms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit broke that pattern in a March ruling against the handgun ban, which prohibits D.C. residents from keeping handguns for private use.

D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said the appeals court wrongly interpreted the history of the Second Amendment. Mayor Adrian Fenty added Tuesday that the 31-year-old ban "has saved many lives since (1976) and will continue to do so if allowed to remain in force."

The current Supreme Court justices have said little about the Second Amendment over the years that signals how they will rule. Chief Justice John Roberts said during his Senate confirmation hearings in 2005 that he believed that the court "side-stepped" the Second Amendment issue in the Miller case. "People try to read the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue," he said, "But that's still very much an open issue."

The new case was begun by Dick Anthony Heller, a guard at a federal building who wanted to keep a handgun in his D.C. home for personal safety. Alan Gura, his lawyer, had urged the justices to take up the case to resolve confusion over the Second Amendment. Even if the court sides with Heller and finds an individual right to keep arms, the individual right to keep arms would not be absolute. As the D.C. Circuit observed in its ruling, a Second Amendment individual right does not prevent government from "reasonable regulations" of firearms.

[brassman]

If regulations get so bad that guns for the general public are not allowed then they will have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

[Tippman]

I think it's important for everyone to join the NRA as a voice for our rights. It would be a sad, sad, day if they ever took away our right to keep and bear arms.

[analyzer]

IF they take away our right to bear arms, we are only one step away from having a dictatorship.

[Grant Pearson]

the only way I'm giving up my hunting is after I start taking a dirt nap.

[lawdog]

I feel pretty good about this case coming before this court. President Bush is a rock solid NRA supporter and I doubt he'd have any gun banners in his appointments and that includes Chief Roberts! I think we'll be fine, but we must remain vigilant. All signs point to a lib in the oval office next and there is no doubt that puts our guns at risk! Even Guiliani has been no friend to gun owners over the years...

[Stratosman]

Christ, imagine Hilary Cliton in office....even more liberal than her husband. Only people more anti-gun are Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy.

[Tinkhamtown]

I am worried!

The Supreme Court can screw up any thing just look what they did to the Indian hunting and fishing rights here in the state of Minnesota on a 5 to 4 vote. One nation, one people, one set of laws-rules for everyone, and yes I grew up on and went to school on the reservation. Worked with, wild riced with, hunted with, played sports with, and had many Indian friends and girl friend but that was a different time years ago when everyone was equal.

[outfishedagain]

When are people (who want to ban guns) going to realize that they can’t bunch everyone into the same group. They need to realize that the people who legally obtain their guns and permits are not (usually) the ones going out and committing crimes with their guns. All people have to understand that it is a dangerous sport and like every thing else there is no way to stop all accidents. There is (in my mind) no way they can take our CONSTITIONAL right away. States like South Dakota rely very heavily on the income from hunting. But I agree that it’s going to be a very sad day for democracy if the Supreme Court decides in favor of banning guns.

Where has common sense gone in some people?

[Grant Pearson]

statistically, badmitten is a more dangerous sport

[Barony]

"Christ, imagine Hilary Cliton in office....even more liberal than her husband. Only people more anti-gun are Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy."

Now I'm a gun owner but not an NRA member. In my opinion, they have no middle ground. It's either all or nothing with the NRA which I personally have a problem with. Please explain to me the impact that the Clinton Presidency had on your gun cabinet? I don't have a problem with a ban of assault weapons or 100 round clips. Don't see much of a need for them for the average sportsman.

[troutmaster]

u sound like jim zumbro

[Stratosman]

Well I do admit that the 1994 Clinton gun ban did not directly affect me, however I am only one person. You may not believe this but there are people out there that own "assault" style weapons that use them for other things other than comitting crimes...What about an AR-15...basically a .223 that alot of folks use for varmit hunting. Put a couple attachments on it, now it "looks" like an assault weapon and therefore banned under the Clinton ban. Thankfully the House repealed the ban after two years. But it sure showed his true colors didn't it?

Here's a quote from Clinton regarding gun control:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles"

I'm just saying why open the door for them?

I do agree with you that the NRA is sometimes way over the top, but am also thankful someone is looking out for my rights. That's enough political BS....

[kc0myy]

I know some die hard gun owners. and the only way they will be up there guns is if "you pry them from their cold dead hands." Also if they ever did ban guns the crime rate would sky rocket!! If you out law guns only the out laws with have guns!!! I will never give up my guns or hunting!!!!

[deerhuntr8]

That does sound like a Zumbo comment. That's why us hunters are called Fudds. Because all most hunters only care about their bolt action rifle they use once a year to sit in a deer stand. We must defend the right to all guns and give no slack to any ban. Do you really think they would stop at so-called assault rifles? They were just testing the waters. I own 2 AR-15's for varmints and target shooting and wouldn't give them up for anything.

[GunDr]

Quote...

"I don't have a problem with a ban of assault weapons or 100 round clips. Don't see much of a need for them for the average sportsman."

ITS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!!

It's about preserving a right given to us by our Creator, as guarenteed by the Bill of Rights.

Spend a little time looking at some of the current bills being introduced by some of the extreme liberal lawmakers. Your punp and semi-auto bird guns and deer huntin' rifles are on those lists.

An attitude of "this doen't affect me...right now", will trickle down and affect your offspring. Will you be happy your children's children will be ruled by a dictator or a King. I don't think so. This is a gov't "run by the people, for the people"

Some of you do not like the NRA, as petty of a reason it may be...to much junk mail, always asking for money etc., but they are the voice of all of us gun owners. Even those of you that are not members, get the advantages of a "win", from the help of the NRA.

Look at those poor souls in New Orleans that had their only hope of protection, taken from them by a "rogue" gov't. It was the NRA that protected their right to defend themselves and had their firearms returned (most anyway).

We all need to stick together because as the old saying goes, "divided we fall". We need to accept the fact that there's "different strokes for different folks".

Doug Braker

[papabear]

can we fit in a couple more cliches or broucher bullets please?

[Grant Pearson]

They wanted to pass a bill that would ban all semi-autos and label them fully automatic because as one lawmaker said, "They shoot too fast." Well, that may be true, but a gun is a gun. Do we, as everyday citizens need fully automatic guns? I don't see the need for them unless you're military personnel. Otherwise, we all have the right to bear arms. Guns, in the wrong hands, will kill someone. They were designed to kill, plain and simple. But, put someone who's been drinking behind the wheel of a vehicle, and there's a good chance that they're going to kill someone. How about we ban cars then too, since a few bad apples have to spoil it for the rest of us? Or, since a few people have gone out drinking and operating a boat, why not make it illegal to boat as well? What I'm getting at is if we let them destroy our second amendment right, where are they going to stop? Especially if we have someone like Clinton in office?

[harvey lee]

Seems we already had one Clinton in office and we all still have all of our guns. They only thing I dont care for about the NRA is their scare tactics. Its us against them and no one will sit down together and work things out.

[JBonMiltona]

I hope that this issue doesn't grow into a ban on guns.

Some people forget a couple of things in regards to this topic, One of the reasons the Germans had such a hard time coming up with a plan to attack the USA (if they had defeated the Brits and then been able to move on) was that they couldn't find away to combat the amount of guns they would face when going from house to house in the USA. And as said above it usually isn't the legal and responsible gun owner that is causing the issue, it's the illegal ownership by criminals that law enforcement should be targeting.

I wish more people would apply this quote, "An attitude of "this doen't affect me...right now", will trickle down and affect your offspring. Will you be happy your children's children will be ruled by a dictator or a King. I don't think so. This is a gov't "run by the people, for the people" when they consider the constitution when laws that are passed that infringe on our rights when it comes the the 4th amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Too bad too many people take the "it doesn't affect me" attitude when it comes to protecting everyone's right to privacy and probable cause.

[AlPR]

Seems to me that we don't live in America anymore. The government keeps taking away more and more of our rights. Maybe they should all go to Iraq and get a few shots fired at them. If they try and take mine, someone is going to get shot in the process. Anymore, the criminals are getting off easier and easier for committing these crimes and the regular law abiding citizen pays the price. Come and try to take my guns, I DARE YOU!!!!

[Wanderer]

In my opinion, this nonsense gets perpetuated by emotional voters. They have a problem with guns for various personal reasons and refuse to look at the facts that support private ownership.

Some of these folks take the anti-gun position simply because it is their mission to make the world as benign as possible, all the while preaching that we should accept others as they are and not push our beliefs onto them.

I call that a hypocrite.

Unfortunately, there are people who need votes to get their glamorous government job that pays more in perks than in salary. They have to take a side and rally their troops. And this is one hot topic.

So, if you don't like the NRA, try DU, PF, SCI, NWTF and all the "other" pro gun orginazations out there. They fight for us too. Just be a member of something supporting your cause because all the while we're hunting, the anti's are working to get the guns out of our hands.

Its a vicious circle that will likely never end in our lifetimes. Now for my cliche: Be careful who you vote for, you just might get them.

[deerhuntr8]

Don't forget GOA. Gun owners of America.

[BLACKJACK]

Quote:

---

Seems we already had one Clinton in office and we all still have all of our guns. They only thing I dont care for about the NRA is their scare tactics. Its us against them and no one will sit down together and work things out.

---

Good point Harvey!!!

Many years ago I was looking at my Dad's NRA magazine thinking that I should join the NRA - then I came to a two page section endorsing Ronald Regan as president. At the time he had James Watt as his secretary of the Interior, a guy that was supposed to be protecting our natural resources, instead he was trying to exploit natural resources, opening up lands for oil drilling, opening up many federal lands for logging, etc. To me a gun is just a tool that I use in my pursuit of enjoying the great outdoors, I will vote for politicians that are for enviromental protection anytime before I worry about where they stand on gun issues. What good is a gun if you have no place to enjoy it???

[chucker34]

I would agree with Harvey as well. However, the left is just as fanatical in its quests to ban guns as the NRA is to let Americans have access to any gun. In the end, they usually balance one another out. So in my eyes, its kind of a necessary evil.

What I find disturbing about the court rulings is that they claim the ammendment applies more toward militias such as the modern National Guard. No, that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. The revolutionary war militias were not as organized as today's government-backed counterparts. They were ordianry civilians who brought their hunting rifles to battle and to help protect their newly declared freedom.

Just as I, should be allowed to defend my home and family from any invading force, unjust government, or rogue law enforcement official. You can say that will never happen but no one ever thinks our right to bear arms will be taken away. It only takes one step and things start snowballing from there.

We have it pretty good in America because of the consitution and because of ammendments like the second one. Start stripping all of that away and we'll eventually - not overnight - but eventually become like those 3rd world countries where you have no rights. And the bad guys still have guns but the good guys don't. No thank you, I like freedom and being able to wake up in the morning and determine how I'm going to live my life.

[chucker34]

BTW, per all the Jim Zumbo comments, I know no one else on this board ever made a big mistake. They must not have if they feel the need to keep beating that dead horse - or shoud I say career.

Dead because the NRA, sponsors and all his so called supporters left him for so after one screw up that he corrected immediately by going before Congress and testifying against his previous comments, clarifying what he meant - that he didn't care for that firearm but not that it should be outright banned. That it was his opinion, not outright suggestion for a new law.

Yes sir, I hope that those people will be man enough to admit their mistakes if they ever make one.

I do know one thing, I will never join the NRA nor purchase anything from Mr. Zumbo's former sponsors again - regardless of whether or not they ever jump back on his bandwagon. Because he's done more for hunting in the past 30 years during his career than they have.

[Barony]

"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."

Now I know grammar isn't a strength for some on this site, and at the risk of being crucified by many, let's look at the grammar our forefathers used in the writing of the 2nd Amendment. This is where a lot of the conflict about the intent of the amendment comes into play, and it's a legitimate conflict. If the original intent of the amendment was to say people have the right to keep and bear arms, wouldn't there be a period after the word state? If the period is added, it is clarified. It would then read:

"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."

In my opinion, that is where legitimately the problem lies, and good luck coming up with what Madison, Franklin, et al intended to say in the original document. I also think that the 2nd Amendment is not in jeopardy either with the court's current political makeup/leanings.

[HuskerBen]

Quote:

---

What I find disturbing about the court rulings is that they claim the ammendment applies more toward militias such as the modern National Guard. No, that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. The revolutionary war militias were not as organized as today's government-backed counterparts. They were ordianry civilians who brought their hunting rifles to battle and to help protect their newly declared freedom.

---

That's the point that I keep making when I talk with friends about the 2nd ammendment. A militia, in the sense that our founding fathers knew it, is by definition separate from the government. The National Guard is a branch of the US Government-controlled armed service. Necessary and important, yes, but not a militia. And what do we do when our National Guard is overseas?

The constitution provides checks and balances between the branches of government, and in the 2nd ammendment, it provides one of the most important checks for the people (the other being our voting rights).

I'm not a single issue voter. I never have been. Nor do I associate myself with either major political party. But I do pay attention to my gun rights. We should not give them (anti-gunners) the first inch.

[BobT]

Not necessarily. Read that 2nd ammendment again in correct gramatical context. In other words, leave out the descriptive phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free state".

Read it without the descriptive statement:

A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This ammendment clearly states that the states have a right to maintain well regulated militias and the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Try this example to put in a simple sentance form that may make more sense.

The snow, at 32 degrees faherenheit, ice is typically at a temperature of 32 degrees fahrenheit. The descriptive statement about the snow and/or ice is that it is 32 degrees.

Bob

[deerhuntr8]

Quote:

---

BTW, per all the Jim Zumbo comments, I know no one else on this board ever made a big mistake. They must not have if they feel the need to keep beating that dead horse - or should I say career.

---

Most of us aren't in the public eye making stupid comments, either. His comments gave the anti-gun clowns more ammo-so to speak.