DU LAWYERS Please, What does this mean?

[Silverhair]

From the text of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397 copied from Thomas.gov

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

Legally, what have they accomplished?

[ewagner]

1. Not a lawyer

but it appears to me that they have removed the argument that the second amendment pertains only to the establishment of State Militia.

[Shoeempress]

2. Rough translation "Guns for everyone"

[MsConduct]

4. Oh great, maybe they can hand them out to inmates when they

parole.

[whatever4]

3. Is this the part

"including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training"

Does that mean the individual doesn't have to be, what, community minded, acting in the interests of the community?

[SteppingRazor]

6. No, it merely reaffirms the fact that...

private citizens can lawfully own and carry firearms -- you need not be a member of the militia (in modern definition, the National Guard) or the military

[Az]

10. Trouble is that is based on property rights

Not the second ammendment.

<Insert lenghty argument here>

[SteppingRazor]

11. What?!

<Insert lengthy rebuttal about 2nd Amendment case law here, complete with snide intonations about the myriad handguns I am proud to own>

:hi:

[Silverhair]

16. The rest of the bill is based on property rights,

but the part I asked about isn't. It is part of a finding.

[hang a left]

14. Do you think that clears the way for private mercenaries. Like

a Blackwater or some such.

[UTUSN]

5. Not a Lawyer: It's the "Truncated 2nd Amendment"

lopping off of the "militia" context.

[Tab]

7. Is that the amendment to protect the gun manufacturers from suit?

It sounds like they're just laying the groundwork for their argument, that's all.

Do you have the full link?

[Silverhair]

8. Link:

Sorry, I figured everybody here knew about Thomas.gov

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109GzbKEt::

[madrchsod]

9. yes guns for everyone

no regulation .they have accomplished nothing legally

[Sgent]

12. The way I read it

and depending on the judge -- if this is passed into law -- it will effectively overturn most gun control laws.

Most importantly, it will almost completely wipe out any gun control ordinance stronger than the federal law (California, New York, DC, etc). Congress here is essentially stating their interpretation of the 2nd ammendment -- which means unless a court finds it in violation of the constitution, it is the controling law.

[Silverhair]

15. It was passed today. W has said he will sign it. NT

[progressivejazz]

13. They've demonstrated their ignorance again.

Congress doesn't get to interpret the Constitution, the courts do. What they've done is once again attack the independence of the judiciary.