Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case

Well, this is gonna be messier than that one dress that Monica wore when President Clinton…well, never mind.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is going to hear a case debating the District of Columbia’s gun ban.  My personal opinion is that the gun ban is going to be upheld, and I don’t see how it couldn’t be (even though I am a gun rights advocate, at least partially).  The 2nd Amendment only allows for the provision of guns to be used in a militia, which we do NOT have anymore.  What allows people like you and me to own guns is STATE constitutions.  I would support a new federal amendment replacing the 2nd, but with heavy provisions, such as:

  1. Background checks – people like the VA Tech guy with mental problems shouldn’t have guns.
  2. Criminal background checks – if you’ve committed a violent crime or have been convicted of using drugs or abusing alcohol – no gun for you – who knows what you’ll do when not with it.
  3. You don’t need automatic or semi-automatic (just a little note, Republican Michigander informed me on some misconceptions of mine – so see below fo why I took out semi-autos from my “banned” category) guns.  If you’re that bad of a shot, you don’t need to be shooting at anything.
  4. Other than this – I love guns – they’re a great means of protection, and as soon as I turn 21, I’m buying a handgun and getting a concealed weapons permit.

The amendment is so ambiguous and just poorly written that this needs to happen.  The Supreme Court needs to interpret it in how today uses it – what is today’s translation of a militia?  Is it just citizens, or is there no more militia – it’s up to them to decide – but they did this with the 1st Amendment – you can’t yell “Bomb!” on an airplane – and the same thing needs to happen here.  But as long as the states provide for the ownership of guns, a federal amendment isn’t even needed (other than for D.C. or if a state goes rogue and outlaws guns).

Guns are good, but only when safely (but not overly) regulated.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case”

  1. Republican Michigander Says:

    I have to correct you on this. I went through this quite detailed on my own site and backed up everything there when my what planned to be three part post became five parts. In brief.

    1. We the citizenry are the militia. Both under the founders’ definitions and the current definition on US Code. Current Supreme Court (US v Miller) precident protects weapons that are used in a militia – despite Miller not showing up for court.

    2. Yes, state constititons are the major basis of the rights, but so is the 2nd Amendment. The question outside of DC’s status is whether the 2nd Amendment is “incorporated” like most of the other Bill of Rights through the 14th amendment.

    3. Background checks – we already have them

    4. Most firearms today are semi-automatic (Automatics require a Class III license) Semi-automatics fire one shot per trigger pull. They get a bad reputation due to the ignoramouses in the media. If you planned on getting a CPL (concealed pistol license), chances are you are going to get a semi-automatic pistol. Any Glock, 1911, Sig, or Kimber is semi-automatic. That’s not even discounting the fact that it’s not your place or government’s place to tell me what I need – nor my place to tell you what you need. It’s the Bill of Rights.

    5. If’s you are getting a CPL – look up an NRA certified instructor up there – the gun clubs should know them. Go through the training and learn about your rights – and responsibilities as a gun owner. I recommend the training even if you aren’t going to get a CPL. The legal training is especially important.

  2. inkslwc Says:

    1. But what defines a “well regulated” milita/Militia

    3. I know, but there needs to be mental health checks as well – and doctors need to be able to release information about mental health of somebody trying to get a gun.

    4. OK, I didn’t do my research on this one, and now I feel like an idiot – I’ll rephrase that to say automatic. And just a note – it IS the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t give you free license for everything (can’t say “Bomb” on an airplane”).

    5. Trust me – I’ll go through plenty of training, and thanks for the tips.

    Again – thanks for correcting me on the semi-auto stuff.

  3. inkslwc Says:

    Hey – can I get on your Blogroll? I just added you.

  4. Proof that Gun Regulations Must be Tighter: David Brockdorff and Gail Pumphrey « Republican Ranting Says:

    […] My thoughts: You have the right to own a gun (with some restrictions – no citizen needs an automatic – sorry, you just don’t); HOWEVER, when you have ABUSED and HARASSED somebody (or committed any violent crime, used drugs, or driven drunk), you should lose that right – you are either known to be violent and/or irresponsible – and need to lose that privilege.  (For my further views on guns, read my post here: https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/supreme-court-to-hear-second-amendment-case/). […]

  5. Republican Michigander Says:

    Sorry for the delay in response. I’ve got exam prep right now. I’ll blogroll you when I get a chance.

    Response to questions
    1. Well regulated militia is us. Well-regulated at the time meant one that worked. Well equipped.

    3. Mental health is tricky. Most think of those committed as the mental health checks, but what about any person that has ever taken any medication for temporary depression? Are they denied? This can be a real slippery slope.

    4. Actually, I can say bomb on an airplane. Or yell fire in a crowded theater – if there is a bomb or a fire. There has to be a bomb or a fire for me to avoid prosecution for disturbing the piece. The equivalent in gun terms isn’t buying one or owning one, but the use of it. Brandishing it, firing it, etc.

  6. inkslwc Says:

    1. I think this will be a major part of the Court’s focus.

    3. I’ve gotta say better safe than sorry here. Who’s to say they won’t go back into depression.

    4. True about the bomb and fire thing, but you know what I mean.😉 But why is somebody going to own a gun if they’re not using it, other than for display/collection purposes – and who’s to say that they still may not go out and use it, or that a family member (such as the kid in Omaha did – not that I’m blaming guns, but guns need to be well kept and only accessed by responsible people).

  7. My Reflections on the Omaha Mall Shooting and the Shooter (Robert Hawkins) « Republican Ranting Says:

    […] said numerous times, no civilian needs an automatic weapon (read here for further comments on guns https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/supreme-court-to-hear-second-amendment-case/ or […]

  8. Supreme Court Rules that the 2nd Amendment Means (Most) Anyone Can Have a Gun « Republican Ranting Says:

    […] struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, declaring it unconstitutional.  I first covered this story when the case was filed in November.  I say now what I said then.  In my opinion, all law abiding […]

  9. john Says:

    I think its a good idea to have criminal background checks done to EVERY person trying to buy or purchase a gun from someone as easy as craigslist on the internet. It would be the other person’s fault for selling not knowing they are a murderer. I mean, why aren’t people more safe when it comes to guns… It is not a game its a life in jepordy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: