The decades of court challenges and uncertain precedent we’re in for are giving me a headache.

The instances where guns have been effectively used as personal protection pales in comparison to the deaths by accidental discharge, domestic violence, road rage, suicide and random acts such as Virginia tech or Columbine. If, in fact, the Court returns the expected decision affirming the individual rights interpretation, every legislative effort should be made to curtail and control the purchase and use of guns.

It seems like the options are either between the states and localities being able to regulate (but NOT prohibit) firearm ownership, and unregulated ownership as an individual right without infringement. So I don’t get the paranoia of other gun owners when it comes to the collective rights position: clearly, even that position protects ownership of at least certain firearms, or else the entire amendment would be as meaningless as the originalists like to think the 9th is.

I said above that it was my impression from the ratifying debates that the individual right divorced from militia considerations was the understanding at the time.

This is factually wrong apparently as the questioning today indicates:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

I think George Mason (one of my heroes) said that for the purposes of the militia: “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people..”

And thats the limit of my “knowledge” on this topic….

DW and mespo727272 are on record…what’s your take?

I like your theory but I think it a tad too namby-pamby. Too much hedging of bets. Here’s mine: Congress gets to enact anything it wants, and the Courts get to pass judgment on the validity. The Constitution trumps them all and it has to adapt to our needs. It need not be deified if something better comes along, until then it is king. Not too original but I like it.

“Ordered Freedom” *yes, we have heard that before.

Do not overvalue the Framers sagacity, as Jefferson reminds us, but don’t underestimate them either. They were sophisticated individuals for that or any era.

Do not deify the Constitution: As Warren Burger famously said, not every good idea is enshrined in the Constitution, nor every bad idea forbidden by it.

The debate surrouding the Second Amendment was spirited and no less than three versions were introduced in Congress. The one sent to the Senate clearly envisioned a right circumscribed by a militia so it is patently false to suggest that “No reasonable person has ever doubted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment…” The final version out of committee omitted some of the restrictive language but did not remove the first clause referencing the militia which legislators at the time never considered would be subservient to a national standing army. The historical context and the fact that Madison wanted the second amendment inserted in Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action, rather than Article I Section 8 dealing with Congress’ power to regulate militias suggests that Madison saw it as an individual right. However it was not so enacted and thus it is left to the Courts to divine Congress’ (as opposed to Madison’s) intent. All in all you may have a point, but like most “black and white” thinkers you have little grasp of the subtleties and your knowledge of history is rudimentary at best.

Thank you.

But if you actually read my post, you should see a concern there for the understanding the Framers had when they penned the 2nd. And that runs contrary to the “living, breathing document” approach.

A liberal supporting the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and concerned with original intent?

You have a broad view of liberalism, K.

What say you?

A lot of reasonable people have wondered about whether it was intended by the Framers to secure an armed militia or individual rights to bear arms minus membership in militias.

I agree with you that individuals do have a right to bear arms irrespective of militia membership,because it is my read from the ratifying debates and early commentaries that that was the understanding at the time. So many communities in the frontier states were isolated and defense was on a household basis, there would have been a firestorm of opposition if the Framers intended to bar individual possession except to members of standing, uniformed, armed bodies.

However, your brief sentence enshrines and epitomizes the route the Court may take in resolving this issue. Practices that are of long standing and have become customary, even when not explicitly constitutionally sanctioned, achieve a force of their own and the Court has used this in the past in coming down on issues where the Constitution is unclear…. The Court is surprisingly deferential toward tradition and established custom.

Chris Rock, the comedian, commented that if you charged $5000 a bullet the gun user would certainly be inclined to involve a lot more discretion than would be used say in a “drive by.”

I am amazed some still don’t get it….

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_internationalscholarsreprint.pdf

This is a fascinating case at so many levels. Probably the most interesting challenge to the writers at the Court for many a year.

I just wish this case hadn’t originated in the District and that the self-defense issue wasn’t prominent.