The problem with a poll like this is that most people are incapable of making an is-ought distinction. The vast majority of Americans FIRST decide whether or not they think there should be an individual right to own guns, THEN assert that the Second Amendment reflects whatever their personal "ought" view is.

This moralistic fallacy prevents any sort of reasoned discussion. I honestly think the Second Amendment clearly provides for an individual right to bear arms, the digression into militia-based motivations notwithstanding. This doesn't mean the Second Amendment is right. Indeed, I think it should be amended. But that's what it is, regardless of what it ought to be.

This is all so silly... when the Bill of Rights was drafted, every farmer was a member of the militia, so there was no distinction between the right of an individual and the right of the militia. End of story.

Of course, we're dealing with a country that finds a constitutional right to a practice that was expressly outlawed at the time of drafting, so what do I know.

hmm, aside from just looking at the text we can also look at history: has there a recognized individual right to own firearms in America? I think the answer is clearly yes, despite DC gun laws for the last 30 years and prohibition on sawed off shotguns. centuries of history and custom should govern, absent a new constitutional amendment.

so, based on that stellar textual interpretation, I guess he would argue that if a real property contract said "because schools are necessary to developing students, I give this land to my friend Bob," Bob has to build a school there? I seem to remember from the bar that that is decidedly not the case. the removal of commas does absolutely nothing to shed light on whether that was the intended result.

Why no mention of the case that is raising questions about the 2nd Amendment? Lat, you should do an entry and poll about this: Joe Horn, a retired suburbanite in Pasadena, Texas (outside of Houston), shot two (black, Columbian, illegal immigrant) burglars who were coming out of his neighbor's house, but apparently crossed into his yard. They seem to have been shot in the back. Mr. Horn helpfully narrated his intention to kill the burglars in his phone call to 911. Check out the details at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html. Texas has pretty liberal self- and property-defense laws, it isn't clear if he committed a crime. Wonderful, juicy, test-worthy hypo! Plus, the Times article has the audio of the 911 call! Should Mr. Horn be indicted? Discuss amongst yourselves.

I don't like it, but it's pretty clear that the amendment was meant to allow everyone to have guns. Wish we could amend it, though.

Dear 9:21:

Nice logic. There were recognized rights to own slaves until we changed that. Women, looking at history, were not allowed to vote or hold office. I think that has changed too.

The constitution was always meant to be a living document (see those pesky amendments).

9:08: Agreed. As Tribe concluded, it is difficult to argue that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is limited only to certain people, not "the people," while still arguing that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments are far broader than the actual text of the amendments. Lawyers have become far too accustomed to believing that the only questions of interpretation is what is the better result (i.e. the result that benefits our client or our political beliefs) and how can we manipulate the language to get us there.

The point of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional amendment process is to protect "rights" that may, at some point, come into disfavor by the majority or the government. There is a process for creating additional constitutional rights and a process for repealing them and the Court has no place in the process what-so-ever.

9:37 has it. The only way that the second amendment DOESN'T confirm an individual's right to gun ownership is if you completely disregard the clause "an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and replace it with "only the national guard's right to bear arms is protected"

Of course it supports an individual right. And all the Angry Leftists and Nanny Staters are not going to be able to make it read otherwise.

Too bad, so sad...

Dear 9:38: You are absolutely correct. Now go write an amendment repealing the 2nd and get it approved through the constitutional process, and you will have an argument.

It doesn't matter what we think is right. We 'know' what is right: there is no constitutional right for an individual to own a gun. How do we 'know' this? Cuz the Supreme Court sez so. See Presser v. People of Illinois (1886); U.S. v. Miller (1939); et al. I guess SCOTUS could always change its mind, but right now, the 2nd Amendment only protects militias.

Adam Freedman shot down at links below.

Sorry NYTImes! If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_16-2007_12_22.shtml#1197851391

http://instapundit.com/archives2/013026.php

9:38, not that I agree with 9:21, but both of your examples involved amendments and/or major political upheavals changing the status quo. There hasn't been such a thing regarding gun ownership. Sorry.

What I don't like about this poll is its lack of nuance. I do think the Second Amendment guarantees this right. But I also think the government is free to regulate that right (licensing, limits on types of weapons, etc) as much as it sees fit to do. After all, the amendment doesn't say you have a right to own any weapon you want free of any restriction whatsoever. Provided the right is realistically preserved, that's enough. Any gun-nut arguments to the contrary amount to "slippery slope," which is just about the weakest legal or logical argument possible. Can't rely on the text for your major premise and then suddenly say you can read more into that text as your minor one. Get over it: the state can regulate your gun ownership.

"The constitution was always meant to be a living document (see those pesky amendments).

Posted by: Anonymous | December 17, 2007 09:38 AM"

It was? Really? Your normative judgments are not facts.

Does anyone have stats on the percentage of Americans who have read the 2nd amendment?

9:38: then amend it; until then, the Court's task is to decide what it means as written.

As for the NY Times article, it seems the writer never learned the difference between a goal and the rule by which said goal was to be sought. Goal: provision for a well-regulated milita, necessary to the security of a free state. Rule: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Rules are often not the best way to get to the desired goal (see, e.g., speed limits versus safe driving). However, the rule, and not the goal, is what governs the Court.

I think the comma issue comes from the fact that these guys were from jolly olde England. I worked for a law firm with a lot of lawyers from the UK and their punctuation was atrocious.

Down with commas!!

Up with semi-colons!!!!!

Was that a 1L up there making a property analogy to explain the second amendment? GOOD JOB, I BET YOU KILLED YOUR MIDYEAR!

9:50: Since when is "the government ... free to regulate [Constitutional rights] ... as much as it sees fit to do." Doesn't this mean there is no right at all? May the government limit the use of the internet to dissiminate messages, or the radio, or television, "as much as it sees fit to do."

I would assume the 2nd should be subject to the same interpretations of other rights, meaning regulations should be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Certainly some regulations would meet this test, but "as much as [the government] sees fit" seems like no right at all.

An individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, so long as it's for this particular purpose.

You're all making me proud.

9:46(2):

You are joking, right?

9:50

DID YOU JUST COMPLAIN THAT A POLL LACKED NUANCE?! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. IT'S A GOD DAMN POLL, NOT A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

9:57

As a matter of fact, the government can regulate rights found in the bill of rights. For instance, deceptive speech can clearly be regulated or to give a more trite example, so can yelling fire in a crowded theater. Regulating deceptive speech is hardly a compelling government interest and yet no one would doubt the government's power to do so. Perhaps I overstated when I implied it could do so without limit (which was not my intent) but the point remains that the government can impose reasonable limits on gun ownership (of the type I note, such as background checks) without actually infringing on the right itself.

10:07: you're a jackass. I wasn't commenting on the poll itself, I was commenting on the treatment of the issue it represents. Whether you agree with me on that or not, it hardly warranted an ALL CAPS response. Give me a break.

It's a living document. Original interpretation of the Constitution is no more feasible than literal interpretation of the Bible (which has been attempted in a "cute" way, see http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp).

As Jefferson said: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (quoted in the very-living Wikipedia).

10:25 -- You're an idiot. That quote advocates amendments when necessary. It doesn't advocate changing interpretations of text given changes circumstances.

Whether the Constitution should or should not be a living document is a policy position. It's not a fact.

10:25, that's what the amendment process is for.

I second 10:25. The Constitution was an Enlightenment doc, and those people (I'm mostly thinking of Kant, but my man T.J. works too) all realized that what worked in one 'age' wouldn't necessarily work in the next. Hence, the Constitution was intentionally vague in some respects to allow for continuous interpretation.

Justice Thomas is an idiot for thinking otherwise. You want 'original intent'? The Constitution is supposed to be living!

The amount of law student bullshittery going on is astounding.

The second post in this thread was the only useful one. "The Constitution is a living document." No. That's just what you think the Constitution should be. There are no right answers, here, folks.

If I see any more First Amendment examples (here's looking at you, 9:50), my face is going to spontaneously combust.

Who's this Adam Freedman character?

I voted Yes, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean I am not in favor of restrictions against handguns, assault weapons and common-sense background checks and waiting periods. That is a big distinction.

If I want to hunt or protect my home, then best defensive weapon is a shotgun. A handgun is purely for concealment.

It seems to me that the Amendment is best read as prohibiting the FEDERAL government from regulating the right to bear arms. This comports with a pre-incorporation view of the Bill of Rights and with the text of the Amendment itself. If the point is to provide for STATE militias--perhaps to check an oppressive federal government--then it makes sense to prohibit the federal government from regulating arms, while leaving the states able to do so.

The same thing happens when you take out the commas in the amendment dealing with a women's right to have an abortion. Oh, wait.... It is amazing when liberals become orginalists and when the don't.

the property analogy guy up top is right (9:37).

but why use a property example, how about the friggin' preamble to the constitution itself.

yes, maybe it helps in interpreting the underlying purpose of the rules that follow, but it's not like every law must be tested for its ability "to form a more perfect union" because that is part of an introductory section explaining the reasons for adoption.

the preamble and the first clause of the 2nd amd may shed some light on the reasons why the rule was adopted, but the rule is the rule.

Overrated: Using the conclusory statement that the Constitution is a living document in a lazy attempt to support your argument.

Underrated: Doing some actual thinking.

10:43 - can't you say the same thing about conservatives? conservatives start to love big government when we're talking about gay marriage...

I love all the "go amend it then" posts. These people all went to TTT's and no concept of the legal history related to the bill of rights. Please READ the amendments, and try to determine how many of them have been affected, interpreted, altered, etc. by the courts, congress, and the states. In fact, please find ONE that hasn't.

The bill of rights has been molded, interpreted, etc for the last 100 years without the need for amendments. Please get back to doc review.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the state militias to bear arms: it keeps the federal government from disarming them. When the Second Amendment was written, the anti-Federalists were scared as hell that a strong federal goverment would try to subdue the states by force. So the anti-Federalists bargained for the Second Amendment so that the state militias could keep their guns.

What people on this board are forgetting is that the Second Amendment is not necessary to protect an individual right to bear arms, because 42 states already do so in their own constitutions.

Furthermore, at the time the Second Amendment was written, the term "bear arms" had a military meaning. So the frontiersman who kept his rifle to hunt for food and protect his home would not have been considered to "bear arms."

Those who are so convinced that the Second Amendment is a federal guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms completely disregard the introductory clause in the amendment.

DELETING A FEW COMMAS WON'T SAVE THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

For all the people saying the "living document" theory is bogus, how is that free speech guarantee working out for you? I doubt you work for the FCC.

I don't understand why people need to argue about whether there is a "right to bear arms". Clearly, that right (assuming it is so) is subject to regulation and regulate is certainly what has been been done and will be done in the future. So, what's the issue?

It's a lot harder to round up political prisoners when you get a gun shoved in your face.

The right to bear arms is there to protect the people from the government, hence the militia concept. It is NOT to protect the government from the people.

Why not just declare martial law and patrol the streets? That would be fun and I am sure I could interpret any sentence to mean that the government owns anything I do and that I don't have the right to freedom, if I heaped enough "law" bullshit on it.

It seems that a lot of people here are under the impression that the government makes decisions based on the good of the people.

I am just wondering what country they currently reside in and what they are doing while the country has slowly become a corporation.

10:41 and 10:59 -- Please read the 14th Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment may well protect an individual right to own firearms, but does it matter on a practical level?

I'm looking forward to the NRA's reaction to the idea of 'compelling state interests.'

10:59: the 2nd amendment might very well have had that intended purpose, but the manner in which that ideal was written into law was to prohibit the infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms generally.

btw, if you really believe in the purpose of the "preamble" to the 2nd amd, then we need to arm our citizens enough to fight off the federal army. NY to shoulder-launched missiles!

Even under the living constitution agrument, what part of "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The citizens are too impressed and humbled by the level of intelligence and insight contained here to be inspired to take a stand against anything...

11:15 -

You're point is not a good one. Tough to see how the Second Amendment imposes a substantive mandate.

Also, it makes no difference whether the 2nd Amendment has been overcome by the realities of the passage of time. Have you ever been asked to quarter soldiers in your home? Probably not.

Time removes all corruption from the government.

Great logic.

11:15: The Framers could have said "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to bear arms." It didn't. You can't interpret the Second Amendment without giving meaning to the introductory clause.

The idea of the Second Amendment protecting the right of the states to arm themselves against the federal government may sound silly today, but that is what was in contemplation at the time.

11:06: Please read ~140 years of case law succeeding the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or did they leave that out in your TTT con law/high school civics class?

Luckily, due to the passages of time, we have just recently solved all of the major philosophical debates that have plagued man since the beginning of time. The existence of god, the actuality of freedom, the existence of the soul, etc.

Thank god for the passage of time. Logically, since it is 2007 and all, we know everything at this point and any barbaric and unintelligent ideas put forth by the founders of the country are outdated and need to be changed.

9:50 - Have you even read the Presser or Miller decisions?

Presser was a 19th century case holding the second amendment conferred no individual right exercisable against the states. This was BEFORE incorporation - when no part of the bill of rights applied to the states. The modern-day impact of Presser (post-incorporation) is exactly zero.

Miller was a muddled decision, but the holding was that a sawed-off shotgun had no application to militias and thus there was no individual right to own one. If what the Supreme Court had really wanted to say in Miller was "There is no individual right to own guns" they sure picked a strange way to say it. All Miller stands for is there is no right to own sawed-off shotguns. It very, very strongly implies, though, that there is a right to own other weapons - otherwise, why even reach the question of the type of weapon?

What if I'm a well-regulated militia of one? If that's the case, do I then have an individual right to bear arms?

11:37 -

What are you on about? We have cell phones, the internet, playstation 3...

WE HAVE Wii FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! W i i !!!!

I mean, if we have all those things, we surely have improved our government since the time they broke away from the oppression of England and decided to form their own country.

Turn off the radio...

Turn off that bullshit...

You can't fool all the people all of the time
But if you fool the right ones, then the rest will fall behind
Tell me who's got control of your mind? your world view?
Is it the news or the movie you're taking your girl to? (uh)
Know what i'm sayin cause Uncle Sam got a plan
If you examine what they tellin us then you will understand
What they plantin in the seeds of the next generation
Feeding our children miseducation
No one knows if there's UFO's or any life on mars
Or what they do when they up in the stars
Because i don't believe a word of what the president said
He filling our head with lies got us hypnotised
When he be speaking in cold words about crime and poverty
Drugs, welfare, prisons, guns and robbery
It really means us, there's no excuse for the slander
But what's good for the goose, is still good for the gander
See...

I don't want no computer chip in my arm
I don't wanna die by a nuclear bomb
I say we all rush the pentagon, pull out guns
And grab the intercom, my first word's will be I believe
Man made God, outta ignorance and fear
If God made man, then why the hell would he put us here?
I thought he's supposed to be the all loving
The same God who let Hitler put the Jews in the oven
We don't fall for the regular shit, they try to feed us
All this half-ass leadership, flippin position
They turn politcian and shut the hell up and follow tradition
For your TV screen, is telling lies to your vision
Every channel got some brainwashed cop shit to watch
Running up in niggas cribs claiming that they heard shots
It's a plot, but busta can you tell me who's greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Sign of the times, terrorism on the rise
Commercial airplanes, falling out the sky like flies
Make me wonder what secrets went down with Bob Brown (?)
Who burnt churches to the ground with no evidence found?
It's not coincidence, it's been too many studied incidents
It coulda been the Klan who put that bomb at the Olympics
But it probably was the FBI, deep at the call
Cuz if they make us all panic then they can start martial law

I don't believe Bob Marley died from cancer
31 years ago i woulda been a panther
They killed Huey cause they knew he had the answer
The views that you see in the news is propaganda

Yeah... tell the folks at Ruby Ridge that they have nothing to fear from the federal government.

my hope is that the court decides that the right to bear arms suitable for militia cannot be infringed, but seeing as things like handguns are simply useless in fighting off a tank or even a body armored soldier, handguns and hunting rifles are restrictabe while it's perfectly fine to own a TOW missile or Bradley fighting vehicle.

also, does anyone who supports the individual rights view think that getting over to that point is enough to overcome the inevitable balancing test? i mean, it's not like the freedom of press or freedom of speech or freedom against unwarranted search and seizures clauses haven't been subject to significant restriction by statute.

11:40 - the 2nd amendment has _never_ been incorporated. (I vaguely remember learning this while cramming for the bar - thanks, Erwin!) So the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states at all (unlike most of the rest of the Bill of Rights), just to the federal government.

"Also, it makes no difference whether the 2nd Amendment has been overcome by the realities of the passage of time."

This was not meant to mean that the government is no longer capable of presenting a threat.

What this comment was intended to mean was that it really doesn't matter if arming the states to the extent that they are able to fight off the federal government now seems implausible.

11:20: well i don't mean a mandate, but a right to be free from restriction.

11:22: i can interpret the second amd by wholly ignoring the first clause, b/c the clause is non-essential to the sentence.

in any event, even if i was a purposivist, the specific purpose listed (protection of free state) might be important, but the legal means through which this desired end is acheived through law is a general prohibition on government interference (the third clause). can you see that you can on the one hand believe in some specific goal and on the other believe the best way to acheive it is through a general and overinclusive rule--especially when we are talking about the perils of government power. the last thing you want to do if trying to protect the people from tyrannical government is to err on the side of governmental power.

Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting the Constitution. He was in France that summer.

12:08

"i can interpret the second amd by wholly ignoring the first clause, b/c the clause is non-essential to the sentence."

Please report back to us on how your 'mere surplusage' argument fairs in court if you ever get to use this.

I thought 'I am Legend' was a good watch... did you see how powerful the zombie/vampire things were? Man, the book totally sucked.

What I think it means is: A militia is necessary for security and freedom, and in order to achieve this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Since if the state can stop people from owning guns, an effective militia can't exist, and that leads to the state abusing its power.

This would be consistent with the other themes and ideas behind the document. Although I don't know why it would say "well-regulated" or what that means. I'm not in law school, I am going to be a 1L next year so laugh and deride me all you want.

militias. i.e. non-governmental entities authorized to carry guns to protect from government encroachment (among other things). an army is a government authority and could be used against the citizenry. hence, militias. local, community groups used to protect the local community from external and internal (governmental) threats. the founders were concerned about king george and a strong-armed government's entry into their private lives. personal possession of firearms (theoretically) protects against this encroachment.

12:30

please tell me how it's possible that there's a well settled balancing test for freedom of speech given that the first amendment states such a right in even stronger and less ambiguous terms than the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms?

This is all going to be moot when the Supremes rule that it's an individual right subject to reasonable regulation, which the various D.C., Chicago, NY, and Cali bans are not... no matter what the idiot in this article attempts to say about commas (while inserting a comma in his final explanation... ha!) That ruling will be the cherry on top of the blowjob Sarah Brady is going to have to give Wayne LaPierre after two decades of NRA asswhoopin.

Funny thing is that the assault weapons ban probably hastened the death of the gun control movement. The NRA went nuts in 1994 when it passed, and anti-gun politicians have been taking it up the ass ever since. Any democrat with a brain (I know, we're talking limited sample size here), hasn't come within a mile of the issue since. It's pretty much just a money issue. People who don't like guns just have tears to spend on propaganda, gun owners actually have money. Geez, in the case of the last gun law congress passed, they pretty much had to get permission from the NRA before they even started making drafts.

Check out this nice time-lapse graphic of the NRA's ass kickery...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

Probably the most effective political machine ever.

All idiots. All of you.

The right to bear arms has only two possible interpretations. Either it represents the right to own the arms of bears or it prohibits the government from cutting your arms off. You can't participate in a millitia if you have no arms. I think the latter interpretation is superior to the former because of the militia bit in there. You wouldn't be very effective fighting if you only had the stuffed arm of a bear instead of your own arms, now would you?

All of you are stupid for thinking otherwise. STUPID!

And the secretary bonus applies to temps as well.

Doesn't placement in the Bill of Rights suggest it the right to bear arms is an individual right?

I fall far short of being a constitutional scholar, but one of the attorneys involved in the Parker case (now Heller) spoke at my law school, and he expressed his own belief that the individual right to bear arms should more properly be understood to rest in the Ninth Amendment.

Also notably, even he acknowledged that the individual right is subject to reasonable restrictions which further a state interest. DC's ban on all handguns, combined with a requirement that all other firearms be either disassembled or locked and unloaded (at all times, no exceptions), effectively created an unreasonable restriction, or so the argument goes.

He also suggested that, while the Second Amendment has never been incorporated, this may simply be due to the fact that SCOTUS has never directly addressed the issue of whether or not it ought to be incorporated.

Again, I do not really have any ground to stand on with this stuff, but I thought it might be useful to the discussion to reveal some of the notions of one of the attorneys who is part of the most appellate case.

I'm not 9:50, but what he/she said was worth repeating:

Adam Freedman shot down at links below.

Sorry NYTImes! If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_16-2007_12_22.shtml#1197851391

http://instapundit.com/archives2/013026.php

12:39 - I watch Family Guy, too.... (But I don't steal its jokes.)

Come on guys, it's fun and easy to do away with important rights by making them "collective rights." Let's try it:

African-Americans don't each have a right to vote, we just have to let at least one of them vote. I pick Condy!

Wasn't that fun!

11:48 --

Want to bet that you and I are the only ones on here who know (without the use of Google) that song is from Dead Prez?

It is a kick-ass song though.

12:57: Yeah, yeah, I knew that.

I believe the second amendment clearly gives women the right to an abortion... any arguments to the contrary are futile.

Why is requiring that guns be locked an unreasonable restriction?

It is kind of hard to shoot an intruder in your home if your gun is locked and unloaded and the law prohibits you from unlocking it and loading it, even while the intruder is raping your wife while you watch.

Even the NRA, the f-ing NRA, encourages locking hand guns stored in the house. Ask the parents of all of the children who are kileld when little Johnny goes to play with the unlocked and loaded hand guns stored in the house.

Your conspiracy theories aside, people with guns are far more likely to be shot and killed during a crime than those that who do not have guns.

2:15 - The problem is not that you are required to have a gun lock, it is that the law never allows you to remove it for ANY reason, including a situation in which you might really need to use it. That does not mean that you should not use a lock or even that you should not be required to lock it. The law, however, should allow you to unlock, load, and fire your gun when it is necessary without being subject to criminal prosecution (and without being subject to the tyranny of prosecutorial discretion).

2:15, You missed the point that 2:00 was making. He did not say that you should store your gun loaded and unlocked. He said that the law should allow you to unlock and to load your gun when it is necessary to do so without being subject to criminal liability (at least with respect to unlocking and loading the gun).

Others have already explained my original point, so I won't repeat it, but I will say that I do agree with the NRA that people should lock their firearms or store them in a place that cannot be accessed by children. I happen to live in a household where there are no children, and find it completely unnecessary to lock or unload my firearms. I fully support laws imposing criminal punishments on those that allow children access to firearms where such access results in the discharge of such a firearm by a child (unless properly supervised by an adult when such discharge occurs).

Have any of you tried to unlock and load a weapon while someone just kicked your door in?

Have any of you tried to unlock and load a weapon while someone just kicked your door in?

Others have already explained my original point, so I won't repeat it, but I will say that I do agree with the NRA that people should lock their firearms or store them in a place that cannot be accessed by children. I happen to live in a household where there are no children, and find it completely unnecessary to lock or unload my firearms. I fully support laws imposing criminal punishments on those that allow children access to firearms where such access results in the discharge of such a firearm by a child (unless properly supervised by an adult when such discharge occurs).

12:05 - You are correct that the 2nd amendment has never been incorporated. But my point was the Presser decision (declining to apply the 2nd amendment vs the states) was decided prior to _any_ portion of the bill of rights being incorporated.

I admit my post was somewhat unclear. What I was trying to say was that the issue of incorporation of the 2nd amendment is still an open one, and the Presser case has absolutely nothing to say on this issue.

People on the Brady/VPC/etc side often claim the S Ct has "already decided" the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states. This is technically true, but highly misleading, since at the time of Presser the S Ct had also "already decided" the 1st, 4th, 5th etc amendments didn't apply to the states either.

Sorry to go back all the way to 9:37 am -- and to 1st year Property class -- but your premise is incorrect when you reference real property. Precatory language has no effect in interpreting the intent of the grantor of a real property conveyance. Your buddy Bob would take blackacre without having to build a school.

Guys in my high school used to bring guns to class all the time; it was no big deal until they installed metal detectors.

I'm no lawyer so I have to humbly ask three things:

1. Do all of the Amendments convey rights to the individual? Or is it ALL of them... except for one?

2. Running on the assumption that the Federal government has allowed the individual ownership of firearms since 1776: wouldn't precedent play a part in any court decision?

3. If the Federal Government banned the private ownership of all firearms tomorrow; how would the Government go about acquiring all of the millions of firearms? Would we imprison all of the individuals who refused to hand them over? What if the number of people who refuse is around 50-100 million Americans? What then?

Side note: To the individual who feels that a shotgun is more effective as a home defense weapon than a pistol (and that pistols are ONLY for concealment): In the setup of my home a long rifle would be cumbersome and difficult to maneuver. I have thin hallways and tight corners. In my case a handgun is far more effective. Also - a shotgun has a limited effective range (when not using slugs which I would never load as a "defensive" weapon) whereas my handgun is effective at distance. In my home, and in my experience, a handgun is more useful in the home as a defensive tool.

I also recommend that you find a local gun range and acquire hands-on experience before you make sweeping comments about what is, and is not, effective in the defense of a home from an intruder.

You should also think long and hard before commenting on what rights I should be "allowed" to have as an American. That's a slippery slope, Friend.

We have a right to bear arms until the piece of shit PD is able to prevent all violent crime. If they're not going to protect me, don't try to stop me from protecting me.

Retards citing Miller... Miller holds that sawed-off shotguns aren't military equipment. Shocking that shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches appear on the U.S. Munitions List... you know... that export control over items "specifically designed or adapted" for military use.

Retards citing Miller... Miller holds that sawed-off shotguns aren't military equipment. Shocking that shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches appear on the U.S. Munitions List... you know... that export control over items "specifically designed or adapted" for military use.

I seem to recall the SCOTUS ruled that the police have no mandate /job to protect any person.

You know what makes a liberal lawyer Conservative on the 2nd? Let them be mugged. Anyone NOT THEMSELVES with a gun scares the wet right out of them. Why? THEY can be trusted, no one else can.

What happened to all those fear slanted predictions that the streets would run red with blood if the States allowed
their citizens concealed carry?