THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

It will be a huge decision. Things don't bode well for gun control.

Re: Parker vs DC = SCOTUS Cert!!!!!!!!



The the SCOTUS overturns the DC handgun ban, would other cities that have handgun bans (Chicago or New York) have to overturn those laws as well?

That is a good thing in this case Advocate.

Outright bans DON'T work.

Re: Parker vs DC = SCOTUS Cert!!!!!!!!


The Supreme Court asserts that:
"All fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty
are protected by the federal Constitution from invasion by the states."
PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 28O5) [emphasis added]
Accordingly lovers of the liberty of self defense from violent attack
will desire the Court to hold that the right to keep and bear arms
is a fundamental right of each American citizen.

In GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963) 372 US 335 the US Supreme Court held that:
"this Court has looked to the FUNDAMENTAL nature of original Bill of Rights
guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes
them obligatory on the States" [emphasis added] hence, the 2nd Amendment
forbids the states from controlling guns if the right to guns for self-defense
from violence of criminals or animals is "fundamental" not trivial.

One more litigated case, originating in one of the states
may be necessary for the USSC to wipe out state violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Regarding public safety, let us note that if the USSC rules that governments
in America have no authority to try to control possession of guns,
governments will still have power to isolate criminals
from polite society, because of their crimes of violence.

The repressionists want to remove guns, saying they are sometimes used to facilitate crime.
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND,
whose cleverness has not been controlled nor restrained (even in prison).
This mind expresses itself perseveringly, into the manifestation of its felt needs or desires,
and it has FOREVER to do the job that it selects
(e.g., the art of the gunsmith/gun merchant). Prohibition is futile.
David

Dave, I am amazed that you would waste all that time spouting that blather on our fundamental rights. We know about these.

Regarding the right to bear arms, the issue is quite simple. It is whether or not A2 provides an unfettered right to bear. I contend, and the courts have overwhelmingly supported, that the right to bear in A2 is in the context of a militia. The founding fathers would never have mentioned a militia in A2 were this not so.

We now have a blockbuster case before the SC on this issue. Time will tell.

The missing part of the Parker V DC story is that the 9th held that the gun ban was unconstitutional.

Why would the USSC even take up the case if they agreed with the ruling? I think it is more likely the 9th will be overturned on this one.

Sadly, you are putting the effect (governments may or may not enact gun control) ahead of the right (whether or not there is an unfettered right to bear).

A2 does not empower militias as you state, but says that the right to bear is in the context of a well-regulated militia.

I must say that your thinking is rather jumbled; thus, it is very difficult to paraphrase your statements.

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.

Well the 2nd amendment clearly states that militia's are necessary to the security of a free state (or nation).

If it were to go as far as banning weapons for everyone not in a militia, wouldn't it just be simple to form a standing militia? Sort of a 'sign this piece of paper' militia, with rules and regulations as to when you must report (maybe in the event of an invasion on American soil).

Map, I am sorry, but I don't understand your post.

The Bill of Rights is all about rights, and A2 is only about the right to bear.

That is incorrect. It isn't an "all or nothing" issue where gun control is either all allowed or all disallowed.





True, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an individual right.





Actually, the militia clause is independent of the second half of the amendment.





I suppose we should wait for cert to actually be granted. I wouldn't think CNN would put it on the air if they didn't have solid knowledge to back it up, but it is technically still a rumor.

To make the ruling apply nationwide.

This is why it was so important to have Alito replace O'Connor.

Re: Parker vs DC = SCOTUS Cert!!!!!!!!


Most likely. But it will take further court cases to overturn bans on machineguns.

Not necessarily. You'd have to get the government to actually form that militia.

The Constitution says the government has to have a militia (that's what the first half of the Second Amendment is about), but they freely ignore this requirement, and the courts have so far looked the other way and allowed it to happen.

It will be terrible if the court shoots down gun control. I see crime increasing a great deal, and such a decision make it much easier for the criminals to be armed.

We will look like fools around the world.

They won't. They'll just shoot down laws that make it impossible for people to have handguns.





It won't.





Only to those countries that hate freedom.

Here are some exerpts of 2 brief articles
qua parsing the grammar of the 2nd Amendment,
by professionals of English usage.

They worked on a purely professional basis.
Tho the periodicals in which the articles
were published may well have been partial,
the experts discussed their dispassionate professional work.
C what u think


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman



The following article appeared in the September, 1991 issue of California Libertarian News,
official newsletter of the California Libertarian Party.

English Usage Expert Interprets 2nd Amendment
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction
of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English
for several years at Van Nuys High School,
as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.
I was referred to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction
of the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the foremost expert in grammar
in the Los Angeles Unified School District - the person she and others go to
when they need a definitive answer on English grammar.
...
"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."
I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.
"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred years.
He said, "No."

I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right
to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated militia." He said, "no."

According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia,
and that the people have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:

Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted
to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."

Schulman: "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics
interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation
on this opinion, and be quoted on this. He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the Second Amendment,
gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms.- July 17, 1991



The following appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment"
in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.

The Unabridged Second Amendment
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right?
But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage,
to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the
Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -
who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage
in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with
Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California
and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise. ...
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus,
has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981,
and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself
but did not give him any indication of why I was interested,
I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage,
to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and extract the intent from the text.

The text of the Second Amendment is,
"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."

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991,
constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective,
modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence
(subject "the right," verb "shall").
The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely
to "a well-regulated militia"?
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms,
nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people;
it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.


[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words
of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume
a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms,
and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed.
The thrust of the sentence is
that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.


[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether
or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State,
and if that condition is not existing, is the statement
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia.
No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms
and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia
as requisite to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.


[Schulman: (4) Does the clause
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
grant a right to the government to place conditions on the
"right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional
by the meaning of the entire sentence?


[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.
It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia. ...

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter:
"With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how
the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion." [emphasis added by David]

You really have to be brain dead to believe in or want more gun control. It is a false pretext to believe that you will be protected by others. The police do their best to enforce the law, but in their eyes, everyone is a criminal. They sort the victims out later. It's just how the system works.

You can either choose to be a victim, or choose to exercise your God given right to defend yourself. It's so obvious it's stupid.

" The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; ...
when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or
pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated,
is on the brink of destruction." - Henry St. George Tucker,
in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

It seems strange that liberals who passionately deplore governmental discrimination
concerning seating for a few minutes' ride on a bus,
find no offense in governmental discrimination
as to who may freely defend his life from violent depredations
and who may not. The penalty for intentionally obeying a gun control law,
is death, in the discretion of criminals, or animals.

Treating the citizens equally in this regard is abhorent to those liberals.

Ironic.

David