Arguendo for the moment, maybe we SHOULD support a broad gun ban!

[BarnkleBob]

A broad sweeping gun ban would finally force SCOTUS to FULLY interpret the meaning and scope of Amendment II...What frightens the gun grabbers the most about the Second Amendment will be the judicial interpretion of the language employed by the constitutional statute (see Statutory Interpretation http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Statutory_interpretation ).... as most recently applied by SCOTUS in the Heller case....to wit, the Judiciary begins its interpretation of all organic & civil laws: "We begin our interpretation by reading the statutes and regulations for their plain meaning. The plain meaning rule has its origin in U.S. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 278 U.S. 269 (1929). There the Supreme Court stated that "where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the WORDS EMPLOYED ARE TO BE TAKEN AS THE FINAL EXPRESSION OF THE MEANING INTENDED." ... The principle was more recently affirmed in Dickinson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103,103 S.C. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), rehearing denied, 461 U.S. 911,103 S.C. 1887,76 L.Ed.2d 815 (1983), where the Court stated, "In determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language. If the language is unambiguous ... IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEARLY EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THE CONTRARY." United States v. Varlet, 780 F.2d 758 on P.761 (9th Cir. 1986) ..... further SCOTUS has ruled on their rules of interpretation: [I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254......... "When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, we keep in mind that the first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. A statute is ambiguous only where it is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. When a statute is clear, however, it is given its plain meaning, and this court will not search for legislative intent; rather, that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used. This court is very hesitant to interpret a legislative act in a manner contrary to its express language, unless it is clear that a drafting error or omission has circumvented legislative intent." Farrell v. Farrell, 365 Ark. 465, 231 S.W.3d 619. (2006) --Arkansas Supreme Court ...... "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996); --Alaska Supreme Court

[JohnQPublic]

Here is the evolution of the 2nd amendment (from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )), starting with James Madison's initial proposed text. Keep in mind we were the United States, so I assume "state" meant one of the original 13 colonies, plus any future additions to the union.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The committee returned to the House a reworded version...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

the House sent the following version to the Senate...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

skipping a minor change (punctuation), On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause...

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-93)

The final version passed by the Senate was...

"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to"...

"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."

[Horn]

And the ensuing War on guns?

[JohnQPublic]

Another tidbit from the Wikipedia article:

District of Columbia v. Heller

Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
Judgment

According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois), 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller), 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.[143] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-RecorderOfDecisionsHellerSummary-143)[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.[144] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-CornellHellerSummary-144)
Other legal summaries of the court's findings in this case are similar.[145] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-WitkinSummary-145)[146] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-MooreSummary-146)[147] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-GlinSummary-147)[148] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-OLRResearchSummary-148)[149] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-OyezHellerSummary-149)[150] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-LCAVHellerSummary-150)

[chad]

the supreme court just ruled in favor of obamacare. i don't want that court ruling on my second amendment rights.

[BarnkleBob]

I think & regard SCOTUS to FINALLY provide its interpretation of Amendment II .... The logic & reasoning behind this is the continual attacks & whittling of rights against the second.... we NEED to know EXACTLY where we stand with no if's, and's or but's.... we also need to know whether the Judiciary will rule with or without the constitution & bill of rights! Namely does SCOTUS support the "rule of law" or the "law of rule." These questions need to arise & be answered...

[JDRock]

yeah...i really want a bunch of black robed sodomites and foreigners deciding the issue.

[midnight rambler]

Prohibition came to an end (recall that Prohibition was a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT) because 80,000 people filed lawsuits in Federal Court.

And Rod Class has established that it IS possible to file a suit in Federal Court without paying a filing fee by filing 'in forma pauperis' (since we have NO MONEY).

[vacuum]

I kind of like this angle. The thing about the legal process is that we all think we're helpless, but in reality that is not necessarily the case. The amount of energy the public puts forward is directly proportional to the outcome. It's just that it's so boring, like all the official CFR meetings and thinktanks, etc, that people just ignore it.

However, if people overwhelm the legal system then everything grinds to a halt. Laws are what govern everything the government does, but if every lawyer has to spend 90% of his time responding to counter offers and lawsuits, it becomes kind of an all-out war. I'm talking about everything - mortgages, driver's licenses, citations, tickets, gun ownership, etc, etc. To me that seems like a good option. Of course that means each of us must study law and present our cases, which is hard.

[Terry853]

Am I wrong in thinking that for more years than I'm sure of we have been under admiralty law and not common law?? Go's back to the Magna Carta??

[gunDriller]

Time for the Million Bullet March, if you ask me.

[Neuro]

Is there a possibility that the SCOTUS, could rule against semi-automatics, because they are in a category of guns that were not conceived at the time of the writing of the second amendment? Is fully automatic guns banned for this particular reason, or because they are not a reasonable home defense weapon? I am not American so I really don't know the particulars of the history re gun legislation in your country...

[JohnQPublic]

From what I read (read the entire Wiki article, it is decent), semi-autos could be ruled against since they conceivably could be classified as "unusual" or "especially dangerous" weapons (and have been in the past). As for being conceived of at the time of the Constitution, I don't think that is a factor. Also, self defense was ruleed a legitimate and normal use of weapons, but it is not the basis of the ruling. The Court stated that owning a gun is an individual right, and also related it to being able to maintain a militia of the people, even (potentially) against Federal abuses. The states have a lot more flexibility in limiting access to weapons, but even they have limits based on the fact that it is an individual right.

[Ponce]

By the time that all is finish and done for 25-35% of those will guns will be dead but 65-75% of those without guns will die.

[Neuro]

From what I read (read the entire Wiki article, it is decent), semi-autos could be ruled against since they conceivably could be classified as "unusual" or "especially dangerous" weapons (and have been in the past). As for being conceived of at the time of the Constitution, I don't think that is a factor. Also, self defense was ruleed a legitimate and normal use of weapons, but it is not the basis of the ruling. The Court stated that owning a gun is an individual right, and also related it to being able to maintain a militia of the people, even (potentially) against Federal abuses. The states have a lot more flexibility in limiting access to weapons, but even they have limits based on the fact that it is an individual right.
But to be able to run an effective militia for defense against federal abuses, you really can't have any limitations on the types of weaponry you can hold, considering the weapons the federal government has.

[horseshoe3]

In Miller vs. USA, the sawed off shotgun ban was upheld because it is NOT a suitable weapon of war. Now, semi-auto rifles are under attack because they are the BEST weapons of war.

[Horn]

In Miller vs. USA, the sawed off shotgun ban was upheld because it is NOT a suitable weapon of war. Now, semi-auto rifles are under attack because they are the BEST weapons of war.

That might be a good counter rally idea, have people bring shot guns from all over the country to St. Louis for a saw-off party...

[sirgonzo420]

But to be able to run an effective militia for defense against federal abuses, you really can't have any limitations on the types of weaponry you can hold, considering the weapons the federal government has.

Exactly... and that's the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.

[chad]

Exactly... and that's the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.

are you sure? you might be mistaken. i think that part is about duck hunting.

[Horn]

are you sure? you might be mistaken. i think that part is about duck hunting.

I thought it meant bodily fluids.

[BarnkleBob]

There is one MAJOR FLAW in my theory ... and the flaw pertains to "war & emergency powers." Conceivably SCOTUS could rule in favor of the second as invisioned by the authors only to torpedo their proper interpretation by ruling that the Executive has the authority to abrogate the second during the long emergency by employing the emergency powers doctrine....

[midnight rambler]

There is one MAJOR FLAW in my theory ... and the flaw pertains to "war & emergency powers." Conceivably SCOTUS could rule in favor of the second as invisioned by the authors only to torpedo their proper interpretation by ruling that the Executive has the authority to abrogate the second during the long emergency by employing the emergency powers doctrine....

The Law of Necessity (i.e. emergency powers) is that 'there is no law' (to preclude us from doing whatever we deem 'necessary').