Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Virginia- 33 dead, dozen more wounded!
This is what greeted many of us as we checked our e-mails, turned on our televisions and read our paper this morning. A tragedy that many will undoubtedly have trouble coming to grips with. Why did a student buy a gun, walk into an apartment and kill two people then move across campus to kill 31 more? A note suggests he was having issues with a girl, and with a life possibly stressed beyond what he could handle.
But in light of the recent events that unfolded there in Virginia, there will no doubt be a new surge from liberal opposition to gun ownership. Randi Rhoads seemed to be kicking of the movement today when she said that only a police officer, after a background check and a personal interview should be able to grant you permission to carry or even own a firearm in this country.
And the liberals say Republicans are trampling the Constitution. The Second Amendment makes one thing quite clear that being, “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.”
Let’s look at this from all sides of it. “A well regulated militia”, what exactly does this mean? Many think in means the National Guard in terms of today’s usage. Some think in means the military, and yet other think it means just what it meant in 1791, any able bodied man over the age of 18. We are the militia of old folks.
“…being necessary to the security of a free state,…” Well this sure seems to indicate that this well regulated militia should be available to defend our freedom, but from whom? From the government most likely as we were the first to attempt self governance and most of those involved with the framing of our constitution had some of their hottest arguments over the powers that should be granted the Federal Government to begin with.
“…the right of the people to bear arms,…” here we move closer to the truth about everything that came prior in this very short but immensely important amendment. We the people remember granted to the Federal Government the powers they are to exercise on our behalf, not the other way around and it is the “right” of the people, not the “privilege” as so many liberal would have you believe, to bear arms that is being kept separate from their power and jurisdiction.
“…shall not be infringed.” Shall not, not should not, not hope not, but “shall not” be infringed. This is pretty direct in its language. Lawyers had not yet inundated Capital Hill with their special breed of word speak in 1791 when this was adopted by congress and the many states needed for passage.
I am sure that many will come to beat me over the head here with questions of ,”At what point is it a arm and at what point is it a military weapon?” or “ You don’t need a Glock 9 to go hunting.” Do you see anything up there in the Second Amendment about hunting? I do not. This is a strawman if ever there was one.
But my real complaint is with Randi’s assumption that a police officer should have the power to decide whether I can exercise my right to own a firearm of any kind. She was going out of her mind with dribble about people having access to firearms when they are depressed or mad. Give me a break. The gun used by this kid in Virginia did not kill anyone, the gunman did. Had he not gotten it legally (which I think is one law that should be changed today. In this country only legal Americans should have the right to buy firearms. No non citizen should be permitted to have one period) he would have gotten it on the black market or stolen it, but at least it would have been harder to get.
Again, this should apply only to non citizens. Americans should have no restrictions on gun ownership like the constitution says, no infringement on our right to bear arms.
But if taking this idea from me, Average American is bothering many of you, look to the source of so many of these amendments. People like Thomas Jefferson who said, “"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Maybe I just misunderstood, so I dug deeper and found this, “We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson
Are we not competent to handle these issues? I think we are.
And finally this gem which speaks to the heart of gun ownership in America then as well as today, “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796
WE are the power of this country, WE are the ones who need to defend not just the first and fifth amendment but each and every one of them. The 2nd would be included in that.
But what would I know; I’m just an Average American.
Well, you have fed us the NRA talking points, and I guess that sums up the extent of your in-depth research. So as a courtesy to you, now that you are taking this issue on as your own, I am going to paste the full text of the www.BradyCampaign.org webpage on the Second Amendment. That will be a good place to start. Then we will begin the dissection of your article in earnest.
[link:www.bradycampaign.org]
_________________________________________________________________
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
What does the Second Amendment Mean?
How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.
The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent
The Second Amendment states: "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." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
The Second Amendment Today
In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.
Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.
Report Abuse