Reruns
Club History
The 3 G's
The Great Tax Debate
Who is it really offending

The Doghouse
Pooch Howls  

Prince's Sound and Fury
Better Angels
Burn A Book
 

Guest Editorial:
CU's Homeschooling

ZEP Zeroes in...
Enron

Justin on Economics 

the Dismal Science

Trade Deficits

Income Distribution

Repub's Corner:
Fashionable Worries
Beelzebub's Buzzwords
VH1 Top 100 Countdown

JayC's Soapbox 
Electoral College
Hall of Shame

Point/Counterpoint 

Point

CounterPoint

Epilog

Member Links

Shameless Plugs

Bill, if I may, and at the risk of "upsetting" Pete, I would like to add a small addition to my earlier "individual rights" piece, with the advent of the 5th circuit court ruling, if that's ok. I think it only appropriate since in most trials I'm aware of the prosecution is allowed to rebut the defense, after the prosecution was rebutted by the defense originally
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If I may indulge the patience of those that have read both my piece and the counter-point piece by Pete, I would wish to add something, in light of recent Judicial events. Throughout my piece, impressing the position that the Right to Bear Arms, as outlined in the 2nd Amendment, the position was based not on any specific rulings by the Supreme Court of the U.S., but by the frequent language used by SCOTUS, consistently referred to, in various court cases being heard, the right to bear arms was seen as an individual right. This has been argued "irrelevant, and that conclusions made by individual justices are simply dicta, and I'm simply trying to read tea leaves". That no right exists, since no ruling has been made official, so any suggestions on my behalf in support of the individual rights' concept, within the 2nd amendment, is meaningless. Of course, I never made the claim that this was an official position, simply when one looks at the history of decisions that had language involving the right to bear arms, along with the founders' documents, it was pretty plain for all to see, how the Supreme court viewed the right

Well, it seems that one Circuit Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has taken these irrelevant comments by the founders and earlier Supreme Court Justices comments of dicta, and while reading the tea leaves, used nearly the same rationale as I've used in making an official and legal conclusion that the right to bear arms, is an individual right.

An excerpt from their ruling.

"We have found no historical evidence that the 2nd amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the Federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on duty. All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd amendment, like other parts of the Bill of rights, applies to and protects individual Americans"

"We find that the history of the 2nd Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of the text, namely that it provides individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms, whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training"

"We reject the 'collective rights' and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the 2nd Amendment. We hold consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of the individuals, including those not then actual a member of any militia or engaged in active military survive or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms." Chief Judge William Garwood

Now, though 1 of the judges chose not to concur, the ruling stands, and the 2nd Amendment finally has a legal position made by a Federal Court, that the right to bear arms is an individual right, consistent will all the other rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. The question now becomes will the Supreme Court of the United States become the final arbiter, since the 9th Court of Appeals apparently has a different take on the 2nd Amendment.

Will SCOTUS step up to the plate and make a final decision, or will we be left with competing Circuit Court rulings, that will continue to fuel the fire of "is the 2nd Amendment an individual right, or not?"

I remain optimistic that History and common sense will prevail, in any subsequent Supreme Court Rulings, in regards to the individual right to bear arms

I thank you for your time and consideration in reading mine and Pete's positions

Respectfully, Gary Timms <aka sirs/PC>