District of Columbia v. Heller - 4

The court says:

"The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution"

This actually seems to stand against the court position instead of with it or even being neutral. That is because if all "agreed" while at the same time differed on whether it needed to be included in the constitution then it clearly suggests having the view of not wanting it to be taken and applied on a generality of times and situations like the other amendments and the restriction of not mentioning it by itself but only as part of another purpose seems to complete the picture here as an extension from that view.

It doesn't matter much that the court says that the same debate happened with other guarantees in the bill of rights. For those rights ended mentioned as unqualified or unrestricted stand alone rights unlike the keeping and bearing of arms and how that fits with the view mentioned above.

In addition it seems that two reasons comes to mind for agreeing to something but not wanting to include it in the Constitution. Either it is seen as too basic or it is not seen as sufficiently apply or needed for current and/or future times and situations. While the argument of being too basic can still be made for not wanting to include other things that came in the bill of rights in the constitution like freedom of speech or due process it cannot be made for the keeping and bearing of arms. That is not only because the right for that later thing seems to be clearly at high level not sufficient for that claim ,no matter how significant is this argument, but more importantly because the constitution itself significantly weakened or entirely abolished the capability for making that claim. That is because mentioning the right to keep and bear arms reasoned for [(Added 12/2/2013) by] the existence of a necessary militia stands very strongly against that the view for not wanting to include it in the constitution was because it was seen as too basic. For that claim it make things much worse than not mentioning that "right" altogether.

Going back to the beginning, otherwise without the view that a right to keep and bear arms may not apply to or be needed for the future as it did for that time what could have prevented them from declaring it as a basic right on its own the way they did with things like the freedom of speech or the right of the people to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures?

There are things in the bill of rights that clearly cant give the same power of excuse for a government to take them away than that of keeping and bearing of arms, yet, unlike them it was not mentioned as a basic right on its own. It was only mentioned as part of a statement about the militia being necessary. In fact, all the pre bill of rights historical examples cited by the court about how firearms were taken by rulers and governments as part of an effort to control people to establish tyranny and their suggested effect on those who made the second amendment (and the bill of rights in general) also support more the argument here and back fire on the position of the court itself because the keeping and bearing of arms was not mentioned as a stand alone basic right like others in the bill of rights.

Notice how those who made the amendments of the bill of rights did not shy away from dealing with things that do not seem necessarily worthy of mentioning for future restrictions or regulations as other things in that bill. One seems to be ready example of that is the quartering of soldiers of the third amendment. They also do not seem to have been always shy from extending a rule taking what was at their period as a base as seems to be the case with the jury trial right for a value of more than $20 in the seventh amendment. Yet despite all that, the same people who accepted that the value of $20 dollars be also the measurement for future times (or were more concerned about fitting their time and counting on future people to do the same) when it came to the issue of keeping and baring of arms they acted as if they said:
Oh, wait a minute, we are not going to mention that on its own as a stand alone right like other things in this bill.

That clearly shows a different picture from that the court wanted to show.

Again, as much as the court try to strengthen its position by speaking about the significance of history examples of taking away firearms on those who made the bill of rights as much as it is weakening its application of the second amendment on our time because the keeping and bearing of arms was not mentioned as a stand alone right like other things in the bill of rights. [(Added 12/2/2013) In other words, as much as taking away firearms in the history had its effect on those who made the second amendment but they still did not accept to give a right to keep and bear arms on its own without serving another purpose then as much as that suggests even stronger intention and determination on avoiding imposing that right where and when it does not fit various situations and future times

[(Added 12/3/2013) One could also say that as much as taking away firearms in the history had its effect on those who made the second amendment but they still did not give a right to keep and bear arms like other rights in the bill of rights without assigning and restricting it to the purpose for which they declared it as a right as much as that suggests even stronger intention and determination on avoiding taking it as a basic right applicable to various situations and future time]

Now lets take a more detailed look at the picture to which I referred in the first paragraph here as it relates to the argument that a desire to have a right for keeping and bearing arms while at the same time differ on whether it should be included in the constitution suggests having a view suspicious of how that right may fit future times with varied situations.

What would you do when you feel you are making a decision based on some special environment and circumstances and you worry that others may try to apply your decision on situations for which it is not suitable? One path that seems to come first to mind is to tell your story when you mention your decision. Those who made the second amendment did something very similar to that. The second amendment is the only one I know of that intentionally shows not only the end result but the process through which that end result was reached.  It was the equivalent of saying we don't know about your situation; this is what we have in our time and because of which we gave that right. See how that fits with the view just mentioned?

If you want to expand the picture to the whole bill of rights you  may see a similar statement stated through things like that of giving the right for jury trial for a value of more than $20 in the seventh amendment .

While that seems to apply on also how the court seems to take the relationship between the process part and the result part of that amendment, you can even fit things deeper and see more details of that picture if you think about how the use of the word "being" may reflect an attempt to tell about what was being found and understood at that time rather than an attempt to impose a notion (that a militia is necessary) on the reader.

Those who made the second amendment and the bill of rights in general not only intentionally showed a process and end result for the second amendment but also showed that they did not care to apply the same thing on any other amendment in that bill]

 

District of Columbia v. Heller