Supremes to second-guess the second amendment?
 
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:22:26 -0600 (CST)


In light of the coming Supreme Court hearings involving the right
to gun ownership in the District of Columbia, consider these facts:

1. The Supreme Court DOES NOT have the power or authority to enact
law or amend the Constitution(s) of the federal and state governments,
so there is NO SUCH THING as "case law." This supreme Court decision
concerns ONLY the two opposing sides in one particular case -- NOT
the whole entire population of the U.S.!

2. Since the District of Columbia is a federal district and not a
state, even if a Court decision DID affect the whole population of
the 50 states it would be irrelevant in a "federal district" and
vice versa.

3. The federal constitution was authored and signed by some of the
same people who authored and signed the older Pennsylvania Constitution
which states at Article I, Section 21 that, "The right of the
citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall
not be questioned." As you can see, the individual right to own
firearms outside of a "well organized militia" is more explicitly
phrased here. It is highly doubtful that the same folk who framed
both constitutions would have meant two different things.

4. The ONLY interpretation of the "spirit" of the Constitution may
be had by studying the "Federalist Papers." Individual firearms
possession, separate from ANY governmental entity, was addressed
by Alexander Hamilton in No. 28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that ORIGINAL
RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE which is paramount to all positive forms of
government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers
may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than
against those of the rulers of an individual state.

"In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power
become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts
of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can
take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush
tumultuously to arms, WITHOUT CONCERT, WITHOUT SYSTEM, without
resource; except in their courage and despair...

"...But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be
said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being
almost always the rival of power, the general government will at
all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state
governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the
federal government. The people, by throwing themselves into either
scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are
invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument
of redress."

I'd say that the individual right to bear arms, separate from any
organized or governmental militia, is not open for debate or
challenge.