Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment 9th Circuit Strikes Again: 2nd Amendment Not An Individual Right

The Federal Court of Appeals 9th Circuit Court made a potentially very dangerous ruling today declaring that the 2nd Amendment does not gurantee an individual right to posess arms. The court stated in its' unanimous 3-0 ruling that the right is only guranteed to State Militias.
<br>
<br>This court is notorious for both their outrageous rulings and for hearing cases by only three of its' nine members. This ruling, however, is unlike many of their others in that while they were only blatant and simple leftist silliness this threatens a right dear to many of us and key to America's national character.
<br>
<br>Fireplug

Fireplug, you said it. Those "justices" not only deserve to be impeached and removed from office for legislating from the bench, but they deserve a fair trial for treason, followed very shortly by a good old-fashioned public hanging.
<br>
<br>First they try to create an Orwellian nighmare at the federal level by creating the ministry of "Total Information Awareness," and now they are taking the first steps towards removing from the people the only element of their liberty which would allow them to resist the Orwellian nightmare they are brewing. I smell a rat.
<br>
<br>I, frankly, find it hard to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in their favor. All of U.S. history tells us that the militia proper is the entire armed "people" of the United States. The "well regulated militia" simply refers to that aspect of the militia which occasionally musters for drills with their own personal arms (this meaning of "well regulated" was in common use at the time of the nation's founding, and can be found in military manuals from that time). The phrase "well regulated," here, has nothing whatsoever to do with "government regulations." The notion that only government can "regulate" anything is an entirely modern one, and was absolutely unknown to the founders.
<br>
<br>To "regulate," in the context of a militia, meant only to organize and train (i.e., muster and drill) in the use of personal arms and battlecraft. The Second Amendment clearly states that in order to make possible a "well regulated (i.e., well organized and trained) militia" (which is necessary for the security of a free state), the militia's right (i.e., "the people's right") "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," as it is the whole people, armed with their personal weapons, who make up the militia proper.
<br>
<br>Naturally, if "the people's right to keep and bear arms" is infringed upon by the government, there can be no mustering with personal arms and, thus, there can be no "well regulated militia." If they cannot become "well regulated" in time of need (having been disarmed by the government), they cannot be expected to have the ability to preserve the "security of a free state" against government tryanny (which is the main purpose for the Second Amendment, which, if any doubt, you can read this well articulated in the Federalist Papers).
<br>
<br>The court ruling was treason, plain and simple, and hanging is too good for those buffoons.

Guys,
<br>
<br>In this case I really have to say "big deal."" The 9th US Court is one with no credibility. Having this court rule in opposition to the 5th is more evidence of the 9th's irrelvance. I agree, the if the Supreme Court hears the case it will overturn the 9th's decision (again). The fact the the Supreme Court decided to not hear the Emerson case on appeal is a pretty strong statement it concurs with the 5th's notion that the Second Ammendment is an individual right, though subject to some restrictions in unusual circumstances.
<br>
<br>Blaine

Amen AFP!
<br> Their ruling is meaningless. We have the right to keep and bear arms, even if there is no second amendment. The Bill of Rights aren't a list of rights that are granted to us, they're a list of limitations on the government. Once you realize that, the 9th Circuit Court becomes so much hot air.

ebd10, you hit the nail on the head. I am amazed at how many so called constitutional scholars are under the impression that our rights are granted us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The entire Constitution is a list of powers that the Federal Government has. The Tenth Amendment tells us, in case we didn't already get it, that the Federal Government has only those powers listed in the Constitution; all others belonging to the states and the people individually.
<br>
<br>The Bill of rights is a list of areas where the Federal Government may not legislate, one of which is in the area of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Now, all we really needed was the 10th Amendment for that, because nowhere in the Constitution is the power to legislate in that area granted to the Federal Government, but just in case our Federal Government civil servants didn't get it, the 2nd Amendment spells it out for them, in effect saying, "You may not legislate in any way which will infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms." This is significant because it does not say that "the people may bear arms." It says the framers acknowledge that the people ALREADY possess the "right" to do so (regardless of anything we the government say, or this piece of paper says) and we, the government, recognizing that right, shall not be authorized to interfere with that right by our legilsation, the actions of our law enforcement agents or the rulings of our courts (Remember, the federal courts are part of the federal government, and as such are just as restricted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as any other branch, i.e., even they are not authorized to make rulings which would have the effect of infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If a court ruling has the effect of infringing on that right, the court ruling in question is nullified by the Second Amendment which, being a part of the U.S. Constitution, is the highest law in the land. This right exists whether or not any branch or level of government chooses to infringe upon it, but they are specifically forbidden to infringe upon it by the Second and Tenth Amendments.
<br>
<br>What does it mean to infringe? It means to interfere with or to curtail. The right is absolute, therefore. If a person is deemed not fit to exercise that right (i.e., they have been deemed by a jury of their peers to be a danger to society), then they belong either in a psychiatric facility or in prison. Short of that, however, they have the right to keep and bear arms by virtue of being a human being at liberty.
<br>
<br>It is, in fact, the classical definition of a free man that he possesses the right to bear arms. A right is something you may exercise without the need for permission from anybody, least of all do we require permission from our servants in government. If you wish to prevent the exercise of this right, the only way to do it is to place the person in the condition of a prisoner, and under the Constitution, this requires all the protections of due process, and a conviction by a jury of our peers.

Hawk and ebd10;
<br>
<br>Before you go damning "constituional scholars" you better check your sources again.
<br>
<br>The Bill of Rights are all PERSONAL RIGHTS.
<br>
<br>Not "limitations on government". Thats what the rest of the Constitution is for.
<br>
<br>The ratifying States demanded a listing of "personal guarantees" and thus the "Bill of Rights" were drafted.
<br>
<br>With out the B.O.R.'s the document would never have been ratfied, and that is why we have ten amendments to an "original document"
<br>
<br>What the 9th Circus has done is treason and I hope you have all contacted your Congressman and Senators as well as the D.O.J. and Ascroft pressuring them to enforce these "justices" Oath of Office violations to the fullest extent of the law.
<br>
<br>The 9th Circus' voluminous treasonous diatribe will be overturned if for nothing else "misapplication of law"
<br>Its a shame that it will take time and much money, and the treason will most likely go unpunished.
<br>

Where do these judges get this stuff? Wheter we agree or not, the 2nd is in serious jepardy again. I view this kind of like a basketball game. When the whistle blows, it could go any way. Hope our side wins. Finally.

Ram, although we all agree that the Bill of Rights refers to personal rights, it is a fact that the Constitution is a set of rules under which the Federal Government is bound. The Bill of Rights is part of that Constitution. All they can do is limit the authority of the Federal Government to act or legislate in certain ways. We are comforted that the Bill of Rights ACKNOWLEDGES our personal rights, but they do not CREATE our rights, but merely tell the government that it has no authority to interfere with said individual rights.
<br>
<br>This is what separates us from Communist and Socialist countries. In Communist countries they pretend to establish personal rights for their people, rather than acknowledging that these rights already exist. Inevitably, Communists and Socialists, also "create" rights which are not true rights, in the American sense. They create rights which are not actually rights, but rather legally enforcable burdens on others. For example, they might say that everyone has a right to free medical care. What this actually means, of course, is that we are all required to provide the funds for medical care for those who do not possess those funds themselves. If we refuse, a man with a badge and a gun comes and arrests us for tax evasion, or our funds are confiscated by the federal government. They might say that everyone has the right to be free from hunger. What that means is that government will take your money from you, at the point of a gun, so as to provide food stamps with it for someone who claims they cannot afford food. A true right, as we Americans understand it, on the other hand, is one which requires a limit be placed on the actions of government. I have a right to travel, for example, which means that government cannot prevent me, so long as I have the means to do so. It doesn't mean, however, that you, RAM, must pay for my gas and hotel bills. See the difference? In America, rights amount to restrictions on government actions interfering with our liberties. They do not place a burden on our fellow citizens, enforced by government agents with guns, to provide you with something or other. If I had a right to three squares a day, that would mean that you, RAM, are bound to provide me with that, if I cannot afford it myself, or some men with badges and guns will confiscate those funds from you. This is not what Americans traditionally meant by a right. We meant that there are areas where government cannot interfere. We put some of those areas into the words of the Bill of Rights. Others were referred to as traditional liberties, which we also retain against government interference (see the 9th Amendment).

The_Real_Hawkeye,
<br>
<br>Nicely said. One of the most important distinctions in constititutional issues, in this layman's opinion, is that American's have never been given any rights from government. In the American view all rights are pre-existing rights of man and thus can and have only been defended against infringement. These rights are many, but only the most critical few are specified in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was the Founding Father's special scolding to government to keep its' hand out of the peoples cookie jar.
<br>
<br>Fireplug

Hawk;
<br>
<br>Don't patronize me with a long verbose diatribe in an attemp to cover your error.
<br>
<br>ebd10 stated:
<br>"The Bill of Rights aren't a list of rights that are granted to us, they're a list of limitations on the government."
<br>
<br>You responded;
<br>
<br>"ebd10, you hit the nail on the head."
<br>
<br>He didn't. You didn't either.
<br>
<br>The Bill of Rights is a list of PERSONAL rights. Not a list of limitations on government.
<br>
<br>Accept your error and move on.
<br>
<br>

RAM, you argue like a child. The key words in the ebd10 quote I responded to were "rights that are granted to us." The Bill of Rights has no power to "grant to us" any rights whatsoever. It is a document of government. Its function is to limit the authority of government to infringe upon our individual rights and liberties. They do indeed refer to our personal rights, but those personal rights are not "granted to us" by that document. This is all ebd10 was saying, and I agree with it.
<br>
<br>Open a book every once in a while. You would find the experience very illuminating.

"Personal rights"? Is there any other kind?
<br>You are correct, the Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. However, I suggest that you read them. Nowhere does it state that "the people shall be allowed...." Each and every one of them restricts the extent to which the government can act against the individual. The language, despite what politicians and lawyers may tell you, is unambiguous. The tone is set by the first line of the 1st amendment, "Congress shall make no law..." and from then on, it continues to list the restrictions on the government.

ebd10;
<br>
<br>Yes, there are several types of rights besides personal. Corporate, Municipal, Survivor, and Contractual to name but a few.
<br>
<br>Personal are God given and inalienable, something I have always known no matter how Hawk tries to spin it in an attemp to incite me. Grow up Hawk.
<br>
<br>What I said and I'll say it again was, the B.o.R.'s was reqired for ratifing as a GUARANTEE of those God given rights.
<br>
<br>You started to quote the 1st., but you abridged the quote to early.
<br>
<br>Here are the 10
<br>
<br>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment II
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment III
<br>
<br>No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment IV
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment V
<br>
<br>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment VI
<br>
<br>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment VII
<br>
<br>In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment VIII
<br>
<br>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment IX
<br>
<br>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Amendment X
<br>
<br>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Note that the individule(hense personal) is mentioned in every one. ie: "people", "person", "owner", "him", "the accused"
<br>
<br>
<br>Except for 7 & 8, The 7th the Government has corrupted. We've lost our Common Law rights and had them replaced with commercial administrative tribunals operating under the UCC. And in the 8th the individule isn't stated, but who could have such punishment inflicted upon them? A person, so the indivdule is inferred.
<br>
<br>Did you know there was originally 12? The original #'s 1 & 2 were dropped for ratifacation and #3 - #12 became the 10 bills of Rights.
<br>
<br>Take care guys!
<br>

I'm not really sure you guys have a big disagreement. What is important is the ecignition that the Constitution limits government and guarantees certain rights to the poeple.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, some of the things said in this otherwise excellent discussion are ego driven and unnecessary.
<br>
<br>Blaine

I think a semantic, but reasonably important change would put us all in agreement. Rather than saying that the BOR grants or guarantees any rights, I think we could all concur on that it acknowledges and provides explicit protection for these most crucial rights.
<br>
<br>Fireplug
<br>PS: Now we can stop debating the 2 percent we do not agree on, and go debate with some of those socialists and fascists (yes in modern America the fascists are on the left not the far right) who disagree with us on 98 percent of the BOR.

Fireplug, fascists have always been on the Left. Extremists on the Right are those who want very limited central powers in government and the protection of individual rights, such as the right to property (including low, or no, income or private property taxation), and the right to be generally left alone by the government. The Left have always been the fascists, communists and socialists. These are just varying manifestations of the same philosophy.
<br>
<br>It was the Left who attempted to discredit the Right by labelling Hitler and Mussalini as Right Wingers. They never were. Look at their economics. Look at their philosophy of the individual vs the state, and then compare them to communists, socialist, and modern American "liberals" and you will see that there is not a dime's worth of difference between any of these philosophies.
<br>
<br>Today, "Right Wing" is considered a bad thing because the Left were successful in falsely identifying Hitler and Mussalini as representatives of the Right Wing, when they were actually brother Leftists. Since then Right Wingers have generally called themselves either conservatives or libertarians, which are two slightly different approaches to Right Wingism; one placing greater importance in the role played by tradition than the other.

TRH,
<br>
<br>Very good point.
<br>
<br>The waters were easy for the American left to muddy due to the reversal in roles between liberal and conservative over time and in European versus American parlance.
<br>
<br>Fireplug