Parker v. District of Columbia Cross Petition

[frankie_the_yankee]

Steve,

Your logic is interesting, but I don't buy it.

It's just my opinion, but it seems clear to me that what the Framers meant by a "free state" is what we would more precisely refer to as a "nation-state". That's the most straightforward entity that a "well regulated militia" would be necessary for the security of.

But the thing is, we still end up at the same place. The prefatory clause could just as well have read, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the formation of an excellent marching band....." and it wouldn't change the fact that the declarative clause says, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right of the people, not of the state, the militia, or the marching band. The people. And as the courts have repeatedly stated, the usage of the phrase "the people" in this and other parts of the Constitution means, "you and me".

DC is indisputably an organic part of our nation-state. Constitutionally, it is a federal enclave, and is ruled by federal law. (This is unlike "the several states" which are sovereign and ruled by state law except as provided by the Constitution.)

So it is pretty clear, to me at least, that the 2A applies to DC directly. Just as it is also clear (to me) that it applies to each of the several states via incorporation through the 14th amendment. I know that the courts have not held in favor of incorporation yet, but they have for the rest of the BOR so there is no reason why the 2A should be any different.

Parker/Heller might not reach there as the entity at issue is DC where incorporation may not be required. It will probably take some other case brought against NYC, Chicago or some similar repressive place.

[Liberty]

First, Kalrog, you be doing Yeoman's work here keeping up with this one! Thanks!!!

I was starting to wonder if anyone else was interested in this (getting no responses). I'll keep watching then.

Please keep it up. I don't find any of this easy to digest and it takes me a couple of days to actually read and understand some of these articles. Your postings on this is very important and are treasured by me.

Thanks ...

[stevie_d_64]

Thats cool Frankie...I'm not trying to sell everyone at once...No big deal...

If you line up all the first ten Amendments and see to whom they apply to "the people" for the most part, and they seem to me to define mostly what the government in general should NOT do, as in limitations and other restrictions...

And that the right to keep and bear arms has always been that little wink wink, nod nod kind of thing that was suppose to be that check valve to remind the government that its not a good idea to press the issue too much against the individual (the people)...Thats what kinda pushes me to look at the "free state" phrase that way...

Yours and my "free state" condition of existence in this country is God given, not at the behest and dominance of an elected body...Sure we elect them and send them up there to do certain things we mostly agree with...Thats why we are not a democracy in it purest sense, we are a representative republic...And they should know the boundaries of their position...

I think over the years they have lost their way somewhat...

You nailed it with this comment:

But the thing is, we still end up at the same place. The prefatory clause could just as well have read, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the formation of an excellent marching band....." and it wouldn't change the fact that the declarative clause says, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Do you have the Second Amendment "primer" book???

My Dad gave me one for Christmas a couple of years ago...It has some fabulous english scholars who have broken down the wording on this and they left out some things, or maybe created some questions that need to have an answer...I still review it from time to time...

I highly recommend picking one up at a gunshow if you don't have one...At least you'll have a good read for a while...

You might see a few things I have since I started studying it a while back...At least it got me to thinking outside the box on this...

[lrb111]

First, Kalrog, you be doing Yeoman's work here keeping up with this one! Thanks!!!

I was starting to wonder if anyone else was interested in this (getting no responses). I'll keep watching then.

Oh yes there are folks that care. I just don't speak fluent legalese at that level. I have to depend on the patience of others for illumination.

[Kalrog]

I'll keep posting then. Anyone care about geek court (SCO v IBM, SCO v Novell)?

[ELB]

So, no cert today. Maybe around Thanksgiving...

See here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategori ... -gun-case/

elb

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is a link that folks may find interesting. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Chas.

[rockhill]

Here is a link that folks may find interesting. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Chas.

A lot of interesting views and comments put forth on that blog. Thanks for posting the link.

[Kalrog]

I didn't update this one before... No comment on this cross petition when Cert was granted to Heller. I don't know exactly what that means, but I don't know if it matters much at all now since the question was worded the way it was by SCOTUS to include all arms and not just handguns.

My guess is that this cross petition will not be granted but that it will not make much of a difference either way. I would say that there is probably a dissenting opinion that is being written for this in order for both sides to comment on the cert question.