Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons

March 31, 2018

by Dr. Eowyn

On February 23, 2018, during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Stanford U. political science professor and President George W. Bush’s secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said:

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world. I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

By “military weapons,” Rice means the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle that confessed Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz allegedly used to kill 17 students and teachers on Feb. 14 in Parkland, Florida.

It is astonishing that a political science professor doesn’t seem to know that ten years ago in 2008, the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 that:

  1. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right to bear arms” pertains to individuals and not, as some insist, to militia.
  2. The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“] may include citizens’ right to bear military weapons because today’s military has sophisticated weapons that government didn’t have in the 18th century. To ban individual right to such weapons would effectively render meaningless the prefatory clause’s “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Prior to the Court’s ruling, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 had restricted District of Columbia residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

But the Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down the Regulations Act’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional, as well as the Act’s requirement that all firearms — including rifles and shotguns — be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”.

The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is considered an example of constitutional originalism — interpreting the meaning of the U.S. Constitution in accordance with the original intent of our Founders. According to the Court’s ruling:

  1. The Second Amendment protects the individual‘s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (Pg. 2–53 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
  2. The “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. In the words of Justice Scalia: “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”
  3. The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by:
    1. Analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s drafting history reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. (Pg. 28–32 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
    2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century. (Pg. 32–47)

    But the Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment right, like most rights, is not unlimited:

    (1) The right to bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    (2) On the matter of “military weapons,” the Supreme Court ruled that:

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174] said . . . that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ […] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”]. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” (pp. 58-59)

    Clearly, SCOTUS’ 2008 ruling understood the 2nd Amendment as a safeguard against a tyrannical government via citizens owning arms to defend themselves. What those arms are depend on the circumstances, specifically, arms technology. In the 18th century, those arms were rifles. But in the 21st century, handguns and rifles are insufficient against the vastly superior armament of  the government’s military. And so, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court left open the possibility of individual right to military-grade weapons as a means to defend against a tyrannical government.

    If we are to go by Condoleezza Rice’s assertion — “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons” — we might just as well junk the Second Amendment entirely.

 

Source: Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons

**

Although legislation was recently introduced in Congress to ban assault weapons by treasonous AIPAC boot licker Representative David Cicilline (D-RI), it’s totally unnecessary.  It’s the same Communist tactic as the “Build the Wall” legislation also meaningless because of the McClarran-Walter Act of 1952 which already bans illegal immigration, but includes a requirement for all American citizens to possess a biometric passport, as well as submit to the Nazi-style “may I see your papers please?” employment verification process.  If you don’t have the best credit report required by the Central Banks, you won’t get hired.

If you’re still falling for the false right/left paradigm, it’s time to take a good long look at who is controlling both houses of Congress.  Did you ever notice “voting the rascals out” does absolutely nothing?  It’s a pendulum that swings back and forth every 8 years.

Every American should be well versed in the Israel Lobby’s (AIPAC) tactics, especially H.R. 1697 and S. 722, legislation to imprison all Americans who criticize Israel.

**

Jeff Gates is an attorney, acclaimed author, and former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. He has also served as an adviser to some 35 foreign governments. Jeff talks about his third book, Guilt By Association — How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. He begins by explaining his personal awakening to the endorsed, systemic criminality going on in the background of politics.   Don’t miss this shocking video.

If you’re aligned with the Socialist/Communist Democrats, you need to understand what happens when you give up your guns.  One example is the Holodomor, the deliberate genocide of the people of the Ukraine.  The Talumdic Jews have only one ethnic group to eliminate:  the strong, educated, and intelligent Anglo-Saxons who have always fought to survive.

Even though the Feds can’t legally confiscate your weapons, the person with the most power in America is your county sheriff.  And that is exactly what this Communist in North Carolina is playing for:

It Begins. Democrat Candidate for Sheriff Suggests Killing People to Take Their Guns & Patriots Response

**

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


WordPress spam blocked by CleanTalk.