Home       Politicus on YouTube       Blog       Freeman Radio       Contact Me Liberty Tree Radio       Freedom Talk Radio       IWasTaken.com

	June 26, 2008 - DC v Heller - 2nd Amendment DC v Heller Decision (PDF) - PDF direct from the Supreme Court. 2nd Amendment - close but no cigar The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. It also said that the 2nd Amendment could be limited by regulation without violating the Consitutution. First, lets review what the 2nd 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. Now,lets pull out one part of the SCOTUS decision where they quote Nunn vs State: In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the 'natural right of self-defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: 'The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!' That is a nice bit of quotation. They also ignore one part of the same quote they use in justifying their position that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right when they say that regulation is allowed: 'Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, ...' That seems perfectly clear to me, and should be for any person with a basic understanding of English. That little bit means that ANY infringement is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, period, end of story. Furthermore, the same passage quoted by the SCOTUS says: '... to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; ...' Again, basic English skills tell us that there can be NO limit or restriction on the type of "arms" regulated. Arms meaning ANYTHING used defensively or offensively. This means no high capacity magazine bans or limitations, no fully automatic bans, NOTHING. Here are some other quotes from Nunn vs State that expand on the position that ANY infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (italics are mine to indicate quote, bold are mine to indicate key points): But the court say, "that the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right, will not be controverted; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons, concealed in the manner described in the act, they may nevertheless bear arms in any admissible form. But to be in conflict with the Constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms, in every possible form. It is the right to bear arms, that is secured by the Constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the Constitution." "If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms, or any other, the consequence in reference to the Constitution is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious." And (and which includes the quotation the SCOTUS used, this is from the end of the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Nunn vs State): I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (16 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision "Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence." The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them as beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, is it competent for the General Assembly to take away this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defence ? In solemnly affirming that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and that, in order to train properly that militia; the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired, are not the sovereign people of the State committed by this pledge to preserve this right inviolate? Would they not be recreant to themselves, to free government, and false to their own vow, thus voluntarily taken, to suffer this right to be questioned? If they hesitate or falter, is it not to concede (themselves being judges) that the safety of the States is a matter of indifference? "And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt, but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right has no limits, short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consists of nothing else but the liberty. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens bearing weapons. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms has been as directly assailed by the provisions of this act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets. And, if the act be consistent with the Constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the Legislature by successive enactments to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For in principle there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing of such as are exposed; and, if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise." The conclusion at which the court arrived was, that an act to prevent persons from wearing even concealed weapons is unconstitutional and void. Such, I apprehend, was never the meaning of the venerated statesman who recommended, nor of the people who adopted, this amendment. The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances; to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; in all criminal prosecutions, to be confronted with the witness against them; to be publicly tried by an impartial jury; and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence, is as perfect under the State as the national legislature, and cannot be violated by either. Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right. Simply put, the 2nd Amendment can not be infringed by ANY level of government. This means NO state restrictions or limits or infringement in any way. ANY infringement no matter how small is a VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It is basic English folks. DC V Heller was a small step in a long battle. Now there can be no question that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Now we need to make the politicians understand that ANY infringement is unconstitutional and get all restrictive laws removed.

All background images, unless otherwise noted, are the creation of Politicitis Political Roasting, are used with permission, or are in the public domain. All designs are the sole property of Politicitis Political Roasting. Copyright ©2005-2009 Politicitis Political Roasting. All Rights Reserved.