Washington D.C., Moron Capital of the United States...
An article in the 7 December 2006 Washington Post had an article about a court case that questions the scope of the Second Amendment. Parker v The District of Columbia is a case against the 1976 ban against all handguns in the city limits of Washington D. C. and licensed shotgun which must be kept in the house inoperable by the owners and may not be used for self-defense because the city government considers all citizens with firearms a danger to the public and themselves. the District of Columbia city government also views all of the Districts Citizens are incompetent to defend themselves with firearms. The District of Columbia holds the view that the militia or military is the only group that is allowed the use firearms because of he training the state puts the soldiers through.
Parker v District of Columbia is a case of six plaitiffs that are seeking the means to protect themselves within the limits of Washington D.C. with oprable firearms within their own homes. which is against the city statutes, even moving from room to room is a statutory offense in the Washington D.C. and the city has stated that if the plaintifs violate these statutes even within their own homes that the city would prosecute them to the fullest extent, which is 1 year in prison or a fine or both. The plaintiffs state that these laws are a violation of their Second Amendment rights. Now the Second Amendment states:
That seems to be a well written and very simple statement that is easy to understand, and the congress went a step further and defined what the militia is and who composed the militia in the United States Code, this has been revised over the years and currently defined and composed as:
Now some people are exempt from militia duty:
Well look at that, the militia is well regulated by congress in the United States Codes as well as in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. the PEOPLE, as in WE THE PEOPLE, are the MILITIA. Appearantly Washington D.C. disagrees with the U.S. Codes as well as the plain language of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia's Solicitor General Todd Kim stated "We interpret the Second Amemdment in military terms." Mr. Kim also stated to the U.S. Court of Appeals (for the District of Columbia circuit) that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.The District of Columbia has no state statutes to adhere to and hinges entirely on the Constitution of the Unted States of America. Although I do think that the U.S. Codes also applies in this situation.
Judge Laurence Silberman wanted Mr. Kim to show him anybody in the 19th century that interpreted the Second amendment the way that the District of Columbia does and pointed out that the collective right theory did not come about until the mid twentieth century. Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District of Columbia. (Apuzzo, Scope of the Second Amendment Questioned, Washington Post, 7 December 2006) Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith debated the meaning of the second amendment language of the militia. ( how stupid can these judges be? Did they graduate from law school? Didn't they learn how to read and comprehend written and spoken English language?) they also asked the question "If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed is the right to keep and bear arms still needed?"
First off the well regulated militia is still needed and so is the the right to keep and bear arms to guard against the possibility of the government usurping the peoples power. Let me quote the most important federal document that laid the foundation of the constitution,
The Declaration of independence is just one reason for the second amendment, The Framers of the constitution wrote the federalist papers and the majority of the founders prefered the citizens have the means to defend themselves and if necessary to overthrow the government if the government became destructive to the rights of the citizens.
The bigger question came from the plaintiffs attorney Alan Gura Stated "That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," then he (Mr. Gura) asked, " If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the U.S. Constitution?"
This is very dangerous Constitutional grounds that the courts are treading upon. To declare a Constitutional Amendment no longer necessary is not in the purview of the courts at any level in the court system. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States that all laws are judged by, the courts do not have the power to declare amendments unconstitutional or no longer valid, the job of the appeallate courts is to interpret laws in accordance with the constitution not to judge the Constitution. This case is the ultimate case in regards to personal freedoms that we as Americans should hold dear to our hearts, and guard with a viciously jealous vigilance. That if the judges over step their boundaries as established in the U.S. Constitution then WE THE PEOPLE should be prepared to take all the necessary steps to protect our rights against this usurptation of power and the Constitution.
Evan
Parker v District of Columbia is a case of six plaitiffs that are seeking the means to protect themselves within the limits of Washington D.C. with oprable firearms within their own homes. which is against the city statutes, even moving from room to room is a statutory offense in the Washington D.C. and the city has stated that if the plaintifs violate these statutes even within their own homes that the city would prosecute them to the fullest extent, which is 1 year in prison or a fine or both. The plaintiffs state that these laws are a violation of their Second Amendment rights. Now the Second Amendment states:
- Amendment II. 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.
That seems to be a well written and very simple statement that is easy to understand, and the congress went a step further and defined what the militia is and who composed the militia in the United States Code, this has been revised over the years and currently defined and composed as:
- § 311. Militia: composition and classes
- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are—
- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Now some people are exempt from militia duty:
- § 312. Militia duty: exemptions
- (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
- (1) The Vice President.
- (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
- (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
- (4) Customhouse clerks.
- (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
- (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
- (7) Pilots on navigable waters.
- (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
- (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
Well look at that, the militia is well regulated by congress in the United States Codes as well as in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. the PEOPLE, as in WE THE PEOPLE, are the MILITIA. Appearantly Washington D.C. disagrees with the U.S. Codes as well as the plain language of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia's Solicitor General Todd Kim stated "We interpret the Second Amemdment in military terms." Mr. Kim also stated to the U.S. Court of Appeals (for the District of Columbia circuit) that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.The District of Columbia has no state statutes to adhere to and hinges entirely on the Constitution of the Unted States of America. Although I do think that the U.S. Codes also applies in this situation.
Judge Laurence Silberman wanted Mr. Kim to show him anybody in the 19th century that interpreted the Second amendment the way that the District of Columbia does and pointed out that the collective right theory did not come about until the mid twentieth century. Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District of Columbia. (Apuzzo, Scope of the Second Amendment Questioned, Washington Post, 7 December 2006) Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith debated the meaning of the second amendment language of the militia. ( how stupid can these judges be? Did they graduate from law school? Didn't they learn how to read and comprehend written and spoken English language?) they also asked the question "If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed is the right to keep and bear arms still needed?"
First off the well regulated militia is still needed and so is the the right to keep and bear arms to guard against the possibility of the government usurping the peoples power. Let me quote the most important federal document that laid the foundation of the constitution,
- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Declaration of independence is just one reason for the second amendment, The Framers of the constitution wrote the federalist papers and the majority of the founders prefered the citizens have the means to defend themselves and if necessary to overthrow the government if the government became destructive to the rights of the citizens.
The bigger question came from the plaintiffs attorney Alan Gura Stated "That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," then he (Mr. Gura) asked, " If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the U.S. Constitution?"
This is very dangerous Constitutional grounds that the courts are treading upon. To declare a Constitutional Amendment no longer necessary is not in the purview of the courts at any level in the court system. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States that all laws are judged by, the courts do not have the power to declare amendments unconstitutional or no longer valid, the job of the appeallate courts is to interpret laws in accordance with the constitution not to judge the Constitution. This case is the ultimate case in regards to personal freedoms that we as Americans should hold dear to our hearts, and guard with a viciously jealous vigilance. That if the judges over step their boundaries as established in the U.S. Constitution then WE THE PEOPLE should be prepared to take all the necessary steps to protect our rights against this usurptation of power and the Constitution.
Evan
posted by CaptCBleu at 20:39
0 comments
