Owning a Gun Under Federal Law
While the Courts have never brightly defined under the law who actually has a right to own a firearm, the presumption has always been that there is no individual right bestowed upon the citizens of this country.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is currently creating a quite a stir in the federal courts. For those that are not familiar with the Second Amendment, it provides as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Experts believe that the Second Amendment creates an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons. Others disagree and seem to believe that the Second Amendment allows reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
The United States Supreme Court may be putting this issue to rest soon. The question of whether or not an individual has a constitutional right under federal law to own a firearm is being heard in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The court granted certiorari in response to an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), which was a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to rule that a firearm ban was an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The appellate court then took it a step further and held that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to possess firearms for private use.
A victory for Heller will likely inspire acknowledged gun owners in other jurisdictions to challenge restrictive gun laws passed by states and cities. Accordingly, many commentaries believe that the Supreme Court appears poised to rule that the Second Amendment protects a private right to possess and use firearms. Does “bear” literally mean the right to carry a gun with you wherever you go, or is the fact that you can have one in your home enough? Moreover, does “arms” mean you can have absolutely any kind of weapon you want, or does the government have the right to say which arms are permitted and which are not? Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will soon answer these questions for us.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
How does “shall NOT be infringed” go to “shall be infringed at will”?
“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 … The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms…”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/FedNo28.html
“The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed…”
- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirginia.html
“Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.”
- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnVsState.html
“The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation — of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.”
- James Wilson,’Of the Natural Rights of Individuals’, 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/OftheNaturalRights.html
“The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”
- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senate11171818.html
“That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms…should be the last resort.”
- George Washington, 1789 letter to George Mason.[The True George Washington, 10th Ed. By Paul Leicester Ford.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/GeorgeWashingtonArms.html
ALL of those men were AT the debates/framing on the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution. They KNOW what they meant, and they MEANT what they said.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I WAS WONDERING THAT IF I HAVE A FELONY IF I CAN OWN A HUNTING RIFLE IN MY NAME