Firearms right doesn't require militia presence

Post anything and everything related to guns here...
Posts: 1087

Firearms right doesn't require militia presence

Post#1 » Fri May 16, 2008 5:09 pm

This is kinda surprising. Of course I'll protect my family regardless of any "laws" the evil ones pass. hangman


In response to all of those who felt the need to write in and tell us that the second amendment does not protect the individual right to own and bear arms, I would like to simply quote a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This case is currently being ruled upon in the Supreme Court and a decision is expected in June.

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Patrick Smith

Junior in the School of Mechanical Engineering

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest