Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep

dansargis.org ^ | October 17, 2007 | Dan Sargis

[Dr.Syn]

 

  

Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep

October 18, 2007 

After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard child of the litter.

And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill. 

If any of our Constitutional Rights were trampled to the same extent that the exercise of Second Amendment Rights are daily disparaged and denied...the American Civil Liberties Union would suffer a collective panty-twist. 

In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace. 

Goldberg entered a Chili’s restaurant to pick up a takeout order on June 21.  When he reached for his wallet to pay for the order a waitress spotted his legally owned and carried gun under his shirt and called the Glastonbury police. 

What happened next should frighten all Americans. 

As reported by the Hartford Courant, “Officers arrived and pushed Goldberg against the wall, while customers and wait staff watched. Goldberg, the soft-spoken son of a 30-year police veteran, said he calmly told the officers he had a permit to carry. They checked it out and found that he did. But because the waitress was alarmed he was arrested for breach of peace.” 

In true Gestapo style, Glastonbury Police Chief Thomas Sweeney had “...no problems with the officers' actions with regard to the incident,”  

And by the “always presumed guilty” treatment afforded legal gun owners, the state revoked Goldberg’s permit before his case even went to trial. 

Even though Goldberg’s arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its reinstitution. 

The Board has given him a hearing date of May 14, 2009. 

Thankfully this Board is being sued by one of its own members,  M. Peter Kuck, secretary of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, for denying citizens their due process rights with regard to the denial of their Amendment II Rights. 

And another “alarmed” individual, Susan Mazzoccoli, executive director of the board, has responded to Kuck’s lawsuit in true totalitarian fashion...”We have tried to involve the governor's office to have him removed....” 

One can only imagine the national outcry if a poll worker became “alarmed” at the sight of a black man trying to cast his ballot and the police arrested that black man because he “alarmed” the female poll worker and then the state revoked his Fifteenth Amendment Right. 

Or better yet, in response to Malik Zulu Shabazz (head of the New Black Panthers)  ranting “death to Israel...the white man is the devil...Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets” in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington, D.C...how about suspending the First Amendment rights of Black Muslims?  I bet he “alarmed” a few people that day. 

But pooping on your Second Amendment Right is no big deal. 

For the sake of those needing a refresher course, Amendment II of the Constitution states that, “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.” 

Not only does contemporary discussion of the Amendment go ludicrously out of its way to question the meaning of every word in Amendment II (including the placement of commas  in the text), but it also questions the legitimacy of the Amendment.   

In every instance, the liberals toil in angst while trying to nullify the intent and simplicity of Amendment II.   

Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar believes that, “The amendment speaks of a right of ‘the people’ collectively rather than a right of ‘persons’ individually.”  (as if there is a difference between some abstract group of “people” and individual citizens) 

Yet, there seems to be no problem with the word “people” when it comes to the sacred First Amendment.  How can this be?  How can “people” in Amendment I instantly become individual persons but “people” in Amendment II are argued not to be individuals? 

By making Amendment XIV a “living right”, Professor Amar justifies this dichotomy by arguing, “...given that a broad reading is a policy choice rather than a clear constitutional command, it must be functionally justified. And the mere fact that, say, the First Amendment has been read expansively is not an automatic argument for equal treatment for the Second.”   

Amar further argues that, “...other amendments have been read generously; why not the Second?   The obvious functional idea that sticks and stones and guns...can indeed hurt others in ways that ...words cannot.” 

And to this argument, one might ask the simple question, “How many “persons” did Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels actually kill with a gun versus how many “people” did they kill with words?” 

Or ask about the 1932, German election that yielded a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag and made Hitler Chancellor of Germany.  (You have to love that right to vote) 

Yet, liberals fight daily to restore the voting rights of convicted felons while simultaneously trying to nullify the Second Amendment Rights of the innocent. 

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to Black Sheep. 

[robertpaulsen]

"I'd like to understand your logic. Do I not have the RIGHT, nay the DUTY, to protect my own life from harm with whatever means necessary?"

All individuals have the God-given, inalienable right to self defense -- citizens, non-whites, illegal aliens, foreign visitors, children, the insane, prisoners, etc. This right was not given to us -- we were all born with this right, and it is a part of our right to life. I hope this part is clear.

In addition to this inalienable right to self defense, we also have a natural right to self defense with any weapon we want. But, if we choose to live among an organized society, we must live under the laws of that society. While our inlienable right to self defense may not be infringed, our natural right to self defense with a weapon may be regulated by the government.

The state in which we live may or may not protect the right to use our fists, a blade, or a firearm without some form of regulation. This is not a federal issue.

"I contend that the Founding Fathers were stating that the security of the state, and the nation, relies on a citizenry who are able to defend themselves ..."

No. They relied on the Militia to do that. They said so in the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..."

They did not say, "A well armed citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state ...".

"Is this not a more general statement to the meaning of the 2A than to make the assumption that the States hold the right to command their citizenry"

The idea that the Founders would look to the federal government to secure their defense, whether statewide or personal, is ludicrous. They trusted their state. They even identified themselves by their state (eg., as a "Virginian").

If they wanted to protect their right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason, they wrote it into their state constitution.

[Dead Corpse]

If they wanted to protect their right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason, they wrote it into their state constitution.

In a Confederacy, this would be correct. But when "We the People" got tired of dealing with exactly the system you describe, we came up with a stronger Federal/National combo government that would put certain "unalienable Rights" off limits to any level of government. One of those protections was "shall not be infringed". Not infringeable by the FedGov, not infringeable by the State gov.

“The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” - Albert Gallatin

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." -Thomas Jefferson

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." --Noah Webster, 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention', (1787)

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " -Richard Henry Lee, 'Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer', 53 (1788)

[rarestia]

Ok, we're on a more even keel now, but we're debating apples for apples here RE: the Militia.

Haven't you stated that the militia is comprised of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45? If that's the case, then wouldn't that be at least a portion of the citizenry upon which the responsibility lay to be "well-regulated" in preparation for the mustering of the militia in the time of need? So in essence, they DID say that a well-armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. It's basic logic (If A = B and B = C the A = C): If they stated that "a well armed militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." then it could also be read as "a well armed group of able-bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 24, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Could it not?

I do concede to you that the States, not the federal government, have the right to make laws governing the responsible use of firearms, but according to the BoR, no governmental entity, Local, State or Federal, has the right to infringe upon the lawful bearing of those firearms, just as they don't have the right to create laws abridging free speech or illegally searching and seizing your private property.

Sadly, we have digressed to the point in this country where there is a level of political double-speak that is so confounding as to permit multiple interpretations of founding documents in such a way as to invalidate them completely. If they can start with the deconstruction and eventual destruction of the Second Amendment, the one that protects the rest, as it were, then the government can continue to dismantle those freedoms that are established not by the Bill of Rights, but considered as inherent in the lives of every man and inalienable by any person or government.

The idea that the Founders would look to the federal government to secure their defense, whether statewide or personal, is ludicrous. They trusted their state. They even identified themselves by their state (eg., as a "Virginian").

I agree with you that the Founders wouldn't look to the Federal government to secure their defense, but then you said "whether statewide or personal," which, from a grammatical standpoint, looks like you're stating that the government of individual States is part of the Federal government... are you making that contention? Please clarify, as that statement seems improper.

They did trust their State, which is why, as you've said many times, they placed "being necessary to the security of a free state," in the Amendment. However, each State is its own entity under our form of government, is it not? Do we not elect public officials to both the federal AND the state levels of government every 4 to 6 years?

My State of Florida allows me to protect myself, up to and including a firearm. And in my opinion, the federal government, because of the declaration of the Second Amendment, has no business making laws concerning firearms. As you've said, that is the business of the States. Hence our conversation and disposition heretofore.

[ctdonath2]

It included the elderly, the infirm, the insane, the crippled. Was it their intent to turn "the security of a free state" over to this group?

Save those demonstrably/adjudicated a threat to "the security of a free state", YES! Absolutely, yes! When the "well-regulated militia members" are unavailable, those remaining should most certainly enjoy a protected right to protect themselves and each other. (Of course, the notion that such security be turned over ONLY to that group is so absurd as to not warrant discussion; that you would actually counter with such a notion requires I address it parenthetically. That able-bodied males of fighting age are primarly relied on for state security does NOT preclude everyone else being able to pitch in as they can; that women/children/elderly/infirm/etc. may contribute to state security as able does NOT imply the absurdity that state security is up to them to the legal exclusion of those better suited to the task.)

While the able-bodied men are called up to fight elsewhere, those remaining absolutely have a right - which must be federally protected - to provide security despite the absence of "militia members". Grandpa can deter attackers with his old double-barreled, momma can use a revolver with one hand while holding baby in the other, and little Billy can grab his squirrel rifle and chase down those who ran off with Suzie to have their way with her. Invalid Brian might not be able to go far, but he can do his part to keep a few thousand square feet of the state secure. Even infamously crazy uncle Carl, convicted for paperwork violations, might be sane enough to pick off enemy troops as they pass by unnoticed by the militia.

You, however, advocate a position whereby the Federal Government could punish women, children, elderly, infirm, crippled, and anyone else not expected to get out on the front lines - just for keeping and bearing arms for the security of a free state.

The Militia act of 1792 seems to negate that.

Hardly. The Militia Act of 1792 set forth a MINIMUM standard for providing the security of a free state. All have a _right_ to keep and bear arms (or not, as they saw fit and unless adjudicated a danger in doing so), and our leaders determined that a subset of them (being healthy males of fighting age) should have a legal _duty_ to exercise that right, with a minimum standard of equipment.

NOTHING in that act _limited_ the right in question to only those addressed and only as addressed. While the 2ndA recognized & protected a right of all to be armed so they could, as they could, provide for the security of a free state, the MA1792 recognized and enacted a duty of some to exercise that right to minimum standards.

[ctdonath2]

do that and I post no more to this thread. I'm gone.

That has been done many times in many threads. That you left the thread did not apparently preclude you from resuming the same dismantled argument elsewhere.

The indicted does not get to be judge. Any suggestions for an independent aribter?

[ctdonath2]

Let’s elaborate on that.

“A well armed and capable and coordinated group of able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 24, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all residents not criminal or insane, to obtain and own and carry weapons shall not be limited or taxed or restricted.”

[rarestia]

Great points herein, ct! As I recall, weren’t many of the original 13 colonies considered prisoner states or places whereto debtors, murderers and the like were sent to do hard time on plantations and State lands? I’m not particularly suited to discuss the intricacies of that, but I’m sure that any freedman staking a claim in one of those colonies after the expiration of their sentence was permitted to arm themselves to protect whatever piece of land which they owned.

[ctdonath2]

Indeed. As such behavior was commonly depicted in old Westerns indicates that “your sentence is done, here’s your hat & gun back” truly was a given.

[Dead Corpse]

Your thoughts on the subject of the Declaration of rights in the letter of Oct. 17. I have weighed with great satisfaction. Some of them had not occurred to me before, but were acknoleged just in the moment they were presented to my mind. In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, which if rendered independent, and kept strictly to their own department merits great confidence for their learning and integrity. In fact what degree of confidence would be too much for a body composed of such men as Wythe, Blair, and Pendleton? On characters like these the "civium ardor prava jubentium" would make no impression. I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment. The Declaration of rights is like all other human blessings alloyed with some inconveniences, and not accomplishing fully it's object. But the good in this instance vastly overweighs the evil. I cannot refrain from making short answers to the objections which your letter states to have been raised.
1. That the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. Answer. A constitutive act may certainly be so formed as to need no declaration of rights. The act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes: and if it goes to all material points nothing more is wanting. In the draught of a constitution which I had once a thought of proposing in Virginia, and printed afterwards, I endeavored to reach all the great objects of public liberty, and did not mean to add a declaration of rights. Probably the object was imperfectly executed: but the deficiencies would have been supplied by others in the course of discussion. But in a constitutive act which leaves some precious articles unnoticed, and raises implications against others, a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our new federal constitution. This instrument forms us into one state as to certain objects, and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard us against their abuses of power within the feild submitted to them.
2. A positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. Answer. Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.
3. The limited powers of the federal government and jealousy of the subordinate governments afford a security which exists in no other instance. Answer. The first member of this seems resolvable into the 1st. objection before stated. The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text whereby they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this view it is necessary to the federal government also: as by the same text they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments.
4. Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkeable difference between the characters of the Inconveniencies which attend a Declaration of rights, and those which attend the want of it. The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is shortlived, moderate, and reparable. The inconveniencies of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting and irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse. The executive in our governments is not the sole, it is scarcely the principal object of my jealousy. The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period. I know there are some among us who would now establish a monarchy. But they are inconsiderable in number and weight of character. The rising race are all republicans. We were educated in royalism: no wonder if some of us retain that idolatry still. Our young people are educated in republicanism. An apostacy from that to royalism is unprecedented and impossible. I am much pleased with the prospect that a declaration of rights will be added: and hope it will be done in that way which will not endanger the whole frame of the government, or any essential part of it. - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 15 Mar. 1789Papers 14:659--61

[robertpaulsen]

"So in essence, they DID say that a well-armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state"

No. A portion of the citizenry was to be formed into a well regulated Militia. I believe the Militia was about 20% of the population -- a relatively small group.

"then it could also be read as "a well armed group of able-bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 24, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Could it not? "

Close. "A well armed regulated group of able-bodied individuals white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 45, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

"but according to the BoR, no governmental entity, Local, State or Federal, has the right to infringe upon the lawful bearing of those firearms"

No. The Bill of Rights, as written, was a limitation only on the federal government. Here, read this: The Bar to Federal Action and Incorporation.

"but then you said "whether statewide or personal,"

The Founders would not look to the federal government to protect their right to defend their state. The Founders would not look to the federal government to protect their right to defend themselves.

""being necessary to the security of a free state,"

They're referring to "the security of a free nation".

"And in my opinion, the federal government, because of the declaration of the Second Amendment, has no business making laws concerning firearms."

An excellent point. "Shall not be infringed" seems to preclude that.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may write laws which "reasonably regulate" a constitutional right provided there is a compelling government interest.

[robertpaulsen]

"You, however, advocate a position whereby the Federal Government could punish women, children, elderly, infirm, crippled, and anyone else not expected to get out on the front lines - just for keeping and bearing arms for the security of a free state."

Because their RKBA is not protected doesn't mean they can't be armed.

Look at California. There is nothing -- nada, zero, zilch -- in their state constitution protecting the RKBA for anyone. Yet millions of Californians legally own guns.

[ctdonath2]

Nice red herring.

To reiterate: You advocate a position whereby the Federal government could punish women, children, elderly, infirm, cripppled, and anyone else not expected to serve in combat - just for keeping and bearing arms for the security of a free state (which, at minimum, includes themselves).

I'm not looking at California. I'm far more inclined to look at the Federal government, which already has denied modern standard individual combat arms (M16/M4) from not only non-militia members, but also from militia members.

[Dead Corpse]

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " -Richard Henry Lee, 'Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer', 53 (1788)

No. A portion of the citizenry was to be formed into a well regulated Militia. I believe the Militia was about 20% of the population -- a relatively small group. Bobby 2007

Ain't no one buyin' what you are trying to sell troll-boy.

[ctdonath2]

A portion of the citizenry was to be formed into a well regulated Militia.

Indeed - and to achieve that, the population from which that portion was to be drawn was recognized as having a right to be armed. That's the _whole_ population, not just the portion. That way, whatever criteria was determined for choosing that portion, that portion would (on the whole) already be armed. By protecting the right of the population at large, and not just the portion thereof, the security of a free state would not be hindered by the absurdity of first identifying _who_ had that "protected right", and then letting them - and only them if politicians so decided - go get the arms deemed fit.

The difference you miss and which leads to your odd premise:

- If ONLY a portion of the population enjoys 2ndA protection, then a situation may very well arise whereby the Feds forbid _everyone_ from owning _any_ arms, then decide who may serve in the militia, and only then may anyone enjoy the so-called "protected right" and get suitable arms. If, say, Congress decides that the defined militia needs expansion urgently, they can call out more bodies to serve but they have no tools to serve with. As it is now, I could be called up to serve, but if that happens there will most likely be a severe shortage of M4s and I may very well have to make do with whatever a fallen comrade dropped.

HOWEVER...

- If EVERYONE (a few ajudicated exceptions aside) enjoys 2ndA protection, then EVERYONE may (at their discretion) be armed and ready to serve, immediately upon Congress selecting a portion of the citizenry to be formed into a well regulated militia. That means (unlike your premise) that there may be no delay between being called up for militia duty and actually being equipped to do so. As it is now, I could be called up to serve, and if not for Federal infringement on my 2ndA rights, I would in mere minutes be ready, already equipped and familiar with an M4 loaded and in good condition.

So which do you honestly think the Founding Fathers had in mind:
- A population which the Federal government could generally disarm, only able to equip themselves when identified as obliged into a well regulated militia (having to obtain and train only after explicit inclusion), or
- A population generally self-armed, already familiar with their arms and ready to join a well regulated militia on a moment's notice?

Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers did not expect the 2nd Amendment to apply to ANYONE until they got around to writing the Militia Act of 1792?

[Abundy]

It isn't worth it...once you start proving him wrong he calls you a troll.

Hell, I've given him specific quotes and cites before in other threads and he just ignores them, now he wants me to re-post them to him to get him off the thread?

Emerson lays out the all of the scholarly research, precedent and arguments at the time of the case that requires an individual right interpretation, but also why the second amendment will have to be incorporated by the States. (i.e. Emerson concluded it was a fundamental right.)

where Emerson went wrong, was applying the wrong method of evaluating the statute in question. They didn't use a strict scrutiny standard, instead using a rational basis standard. If they had used the strict scrutiny standard the issue would have made it to SCOTUS long before Parker.

[robertpaulsen]

"Hell, I've given him specific quotes and cites before in other threads"

Ohhhhhh, you were referring to posts I made on other threads ... years ago ...that you don't feel like looking up? But you're sure I made them. Uh-huh. And you know they're wrong. Uh-huh.

Look, just use any of my posts on THIS thread. Why would I suddenly stop lying?

Or you can just apologize now and get it over with.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm not looking at California."

I know. It's an a-nal-o-gy.

"which already has denied modern standard individual combat arms (M16/M4) from not only non-militia members, but also from militia members."

From members of a well regulated state Militia? Which one?

[robertpaulsen]

"That way, whatever criteria was determined for choosing that portion, that portion would (on the whole) already be armed"

The had six months to equip themselves with a weapon.

"then a situation may very well arise whereby the Feds forbid _everyone_"

Passing a law forbidding all weapons is totally different than not protecting the right. Where would Congress get the power to forbid all weapons?

"Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers did not expect the 2nd Amendment to apply to ANYONE until they got around to writing the Militia Act of 1792?"

Well, the second amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 and the Militia Act was passed on May 2, 1792, so it was a pretty scary 5 months there, huh?

[ctdonath2]

From members of a well regulated state Militia? Which one?

All of them.

[ctdonath2]

Where would Congress get the power to forbid all weapons?

If Congress did not have that power, then the 2nd Amendment would be kinda pointless in your view, eh?

so it was a pretty scary 5 months there, huh?

Cute evasion. Answer the question.