A debate on a Supreme Court Case

NOTE: The Resolution has changed slightly, it is now "The Supreme Court was right to have ruled in favor of Heller in DC v. Heller." I'll first be refuting, and then move on to my side. While I agree that the first part of the clause is a prefatory statement, it is used to do just that, further explain the purpose of second part of the clause, which is to allow for the people to be a part of a State Militia. More on this to come... "So the Second Amendment means that we cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms." The Government cannot infringe upon the security of a State by taking away their right to a militia, is actually what it means; again, more to follow in my case. I'll assume that all of this Court issued syllabus stuff is your argument. (a)- Response will be one of my arguments (b)- "The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." That's a militia, but not a well regulated militia, as the amendment specifies. A well regulated militia was one that included training and an organization as proscribed by the State's legislature. Heller was not a member of any well regulated State Militia when he first appealed his denial to own a handgun. "...ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. " This is false, citizens militias wouldn't have done anything, it would just be a bunch of dudes with guns with no idea whats going on. Anti-federalists realized this, and demanded the right for States to keep militias, militias that would abide to State and not national law. (d) "unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms." Yes, but what did this mean back then, to bear arms? I contend that it means "to fight. [in a military sense]" Versus what my opponent asserts, which is "to have weapons" Lets look at the Declaration of Independence, where the term is used in one of Thomas Jefferson's castigations of George III. "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands." Now, would it make sense for this to mean, "He has captured Americans and forced them to have weapons against the colonies." Or, would it make more sense for it to mean, "He has captured Americans and forced them to fight against the colonies."? In addition, in every Congressional debate from 1774 to 1821, all 30 uses of the term "to bear arms" were used to be synonymous with "to fight." -David Yassky, The Second Amendment: Structure, History and Constitutional Change The Definition that I have provided was the one in use back then, which shows that the meaning of "bearing arms" was a different one than todays. The only other thing I disagree with is "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." A trigger lock can be disengaged in under a minute, and also, the DC Circuit court and DC Court of Appeals have both found that exceptions can and should be granted to the general law in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the DC Court of Appeals Case Emry v. US. ============================================================================My Case! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I will present 2 separate arguments, each of which can on their own merit justify the Supreme Court ruling in favor of DC. 1. The Second Amendment protects only militia related firearm rights. As previously explained "bearing arms" meant to fight in a military sense when the founders wrote it. ""[T]he enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense,"-Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. Ergo, to fight in a military sense is the meaning of bearing arms. Shooting at an intrusive/tasty rabbit would not be described as bearing arms against it, so how could shooting at a person in a self-defense style be described as bearing arms as well? The District does not contend that individuals may not "keep" their "Arms," but that they may keep them only if they have a well regulated militia-related reason for doing so, which Heller did not. As my opponent already explained for us, the 2nd amendment was urged to be included by the anti-federalists, who demanded that there be a way for states to protect themselves of a national standing army. The DC laws do nothing to prevent this from happening. Further proof that the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the usage of weapons in a military sense is that other amendments were proposed that did allow for the usage of weapons for personal defense, but were rejected. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state..." read an amendment proposed by the Pennsylvania delegation. "that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." read another proposition from the Massachusetts delegation. 2. The District's reasonable gun laws do not infringe upon one's right keep and bear arms. As the Supreme Court explained in Robert v. Baldwin in 1897, the provisions of the Bill of Rights are "subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case." As my opponent pointed out, the Supreme Court accepts the idea of reasonable limitations on the second amendment. The US Department of Justice argued in 2002 for laws that place "reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse" in the case of Emerson v. United States. The facts are in, handguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse, especially in the District of Columbia. There is no reason to own a handgun in the city for any other purpose than to shoot someone with, considering that it is 100% city. The Department of Justice reports while only 1/3 of the firearms owned in this nation are handguns, that Eighty-seven percent of all guns used in crime are handguns. The DC laws were enacted to prevent this. Furthermore, the DC laws allowed for people to still own and keep rifles and shotguns, shotguns especially, as described in Guns & Ammo, are more effective than handguns at stopping a home intruder. I have more rounds, but I have no more time. DC should have been ruled for in DC v Heller. Thank you.