2nd amenment being questioned

[Bufflehead]

 Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 8:49 PM

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape [firearms laws nationwide],...attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that ...the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies [only to militias, not individuals.]

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

[pray for the fish]

 The right to bear arms is for the common person, not only to defend himself against the common criminal, but also to defend himself against his own government when it runs amuck. The meaning of a militia in the context of the constitution is the common people with arms, not a gov. sponsored army. I can't believe the way they twist this. When the colonists stood up to the British  army this was well understood and was thusly worded in the Constitution. This is really going to come to a head in the 2008 presidential race. Look out if Hillary makes it. The latest polls show she is well on her way. The big question will be who will obey the gov. when this happens.

[WoodChuck]

 ???  THE SECOND AMENMENT!  the right to bear arms, does not mean the right to bare arms or short sleeves only to the indistinet !

[Fishahollik]

Keep your poweder dry boys.

[jigglestick]

no matter what, I WILL have guns....and amunition >:(

[GRIZ]

I think that old saying "They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it." applies here.

Boy ya know ur spellings bad when ya got to modify ur post and the word ur trying to spell is the 20th one on the list. ??? ???

[eelpout]

The 2nd has been getting questioned for as long as I can recall.  Hunting and gun ownership has been called a "privledge" not a right.  You just need to make sure you are voting the right people in, that will protect our "rights".  I know I want my grand kids to ba able to have memories with their grandpa, like I do with mine.  I think Ted Nuggent said it best when he said  "Hunt with your kids and you wont have to hunt for them."