Monday - December 11, 2006

From My Cold Dead Hands …

OK, I am now accepting applications for membership in the Skipper’s Midwest Militia, or as they are known here, “The Grumpy Old Farts With Guns.” Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me the obtuse arguments some Leftist lawyers come up with to take away everyone’s firearms. This old “militia” argument has been thrashed around for ages and is just as full of crap now as it was 70 years ago.

Read the damn text of the Second Amendment. The reference to “well-regulated militia” is only there to explain why the Founding Fathers wanted the “right to keep and bear arms” included, not as a condition for the right. I am sick to death of gun-grabbers using this lame excuse to disarm the citizenry.

Chipping away at the Constitution has become a full-time job for the Leftists in our midst. There ought to be a law against their blatant attempts to read into the Constitution whatever in hell they want. It’s too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t include such a clause. Maybe it’s time we added one. For clarification, here is the text in question. The last fourteen words are the most important ones ...

Militias Figure In Challenge To D.C. Gun Ban
_{WASHINGTON (SEATTLE TIMES) - December 10, 2006}

In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil-liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban is unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” applies to all people or only to “a well-regulated militia.” The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment’s scope. The court disappointed gun-owner groups in 2003, when it refused to take up a challenge to California’s ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year, but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington, D.C., case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

“We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,” said Todd Kim, the District’s solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city also would have had the authority to ban all weapons.

Of the three judges, Judge Laurence Silberman was the most critical of Kim’s argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District. Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith seemed to wrestle with the meaning of the amendment’s language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms necessary?

“That’s quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary,” replied Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “If we decide that it’s no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/11/2006 at 04:22 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (26) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner