That's a 48 page .pdfTinkerhell said:How long is it? (I assume pretty lengthy)
Can an entire copy be posted or does a copy exist elsewhere (work blocks the scotus blog :x and my google fu is apparently off today as I couldn't find anything elsewhere.
Here is why this is important. The argument proffered by DC is that "bear arms" must mean only bearing them in a military context. They dispute that the Pennsylvania minority contributesd anything to the argument because their proposal was not adopted, but the Pa. minority used the term "bear arms" in the context of other purposes than military ones. The DC Court of Appeals concludes that they must have known what the words meant, and, therefore, the use of the words "bear arms" has more meanings than simply the military context.[T]here is the following statement in the report issued by the dissenting delegates at the Pennsylvania ratification convention: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game.... THE ADDRESS AND REASONS OF DISSENT OF THE MINORITY OF THE CONVENTION OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, reprinted in 3 THE COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST 145, 151 (Herbert J. Storing ed., 1981). These dissenting Antifederalists, writing in December 1787, were clearly using "bear arms" to include uses of weaponry outside the militia setting-e.g., one may "bear arms...for the purpose of killing game." To be sure, collective right theorists have correctly observed that the Pennsylvania dissenters were not speaking for anyone but themselves-that is, they lost in their attempt to defeat ratification of the Constitution, and lacked the clout to have their suggested amendments sent to the First Congress, unlike the Antifederalist delegates in other state conventions. See Jack N. Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism, 76 CHI.-KENT L.REV. 103, 134-35 (2000). But that the dissenting delegates were political losers does not undercut their status as compentent users of late-eighteenth-century English.
Isn't it the police's weapon of choice too?The Council also found that the handgun is a criminalâ€™s
weapon of choice. It cited national statistics showing that
â€œhandguns are used in roughly 54% of all murders, 60% of
robberies, 26% of assaults.â€
True enough, and guess what color were the people in Tennessee who were not discharged from military service with such weapons and were unlikely to afford them new?Several states, like Tennessee, went further, banning entirely the sale of any concealable weapon, including all pistols â€œexcept such as are used in the army and navy of the United States, and known as the navy pistol.â€
Against Tenche Coxe's position:Contrary to the view of the court below, the Amendment under the proper interpretation is not a â€œdead letter.â€ It remains, as the Framers intended, a bulwark for state militias against undue federal interference.
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Substantial evidence of the special risks posed by handguns makes banning them reasonable, even if there is a Second Amendment right to own guns. Significantly, every one of the demonstrable harms caused by handguns exists even when the gun owner is generally law-abiding and responsible.
Fourth, handguns are easy to bring to schools, where their concealability and capacity to fire multiple rounds in quick succession make them especially dangerous. In urban areas, as many as 25% of junior high school boys carry or have carried a gun. Jack M. Bergstein et al., Guns in Young Hands: A Survey of Urban Teenagersâ€™ Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Handgun Violence, 41 J. Trauma 794 (1996). In the recent Virginia Tech shooting, a single student with two handguns discharged over 170 rounds in nine minutes, killing 32 people and wounding 25 more.
I would love to know how many of those were killed by their own handgun?Handguns pose particular dangers to police officers performing
their duties, including executing warrants and pursuing
felons. Of the 55 police officers feloniously killed in
2005, 42 were killed by handguns. See Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Uniform Crime Reportâ€"Law Enforcement Officers
Killed and Assaulted at Table 28 (2005),