Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by 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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
That right was Constitutionally protected for "the people", a term which was not more narrowly defined in the Constitution. That actual active protection varied among discernable groups was a matter of imperfect implementation of protection by fallible biased humans - just as voting, citizenship, etc. all started as primarily improperly limited to white male landowners, and those not included subsequently had to fight (legally and physically) for inclusion.
It's the 21st Century, RP - arguing to limit the protection of enumerated rights to a subclass of people in general (and let's stick to your "white, male landowners" allegation, not some red herring) is legally, politically, and socially very passe.
Not exactly correct.
Even Professor Amar was clear on this:
As scholars such as Stephen Halbrook, Michael Kent Curtis, Robert Cottrol, and Ray Diamond have documented in great detail, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment strongly believed in an individual right to own and keep guns in one's home for self-protection. Most obviously, blacks and Unionists down South could not always count on the local police to keep white night-riders at bay. When guns were outlawed, only Klansmen would have guns. Thus, the Reconstruction Congress made quite clear that a right to keep a gun at home for self-protection was indeed a constitutional right--a true "privilege" or "immunity" of citizens.
Now why is that? Especially if the 1st Amendment was originally implicitly intended to protect the rights of white male landowners, and states could restrict that right as they saw fit?
At this point that is for the court to decide because that is the basis of the litigation.
I can easily imagine it, back where I lived in the P.R of Kalifornistan.
Now I live in free north Florida, and I can’t imagine it.
Robert Paulsens abysmal Constitutional ignorance is on display yet again. I swear I've never seen anyone so proud of their bone deep stupidity in all my life...
"Justice delayed is justice denied" William Gladstone.
Paulsen calling you an ignorant fool is an insult to ignorant fools the world over.
L
You know that. I know that. But TheThinker is the one trying to apply what was in the Founder's minds in 1789.
"The people" weren't "all persons" in 1789 and they aren't "all persons" today. That's my point.
Not quite clear enough, apparently. The U.S. Supreme Court, starting with The Slaughterhouse Cases, has listed the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" and the right to keep and bear arms ain't one of them.
If an individual right to own and keep guns in one's home for self-protection is protected, it's protected by the state, not the federal government.
They could, and did.
"Now why is that?"
Because activist U.S. Supreme Courts have used the 14th amendment to apply the first amendment to the states in addition to the federal government.
"Especially if the 1st Amendment was originally implicitly intended to protect the rights of white male landowners"
You need to reread it. The first amendment protected the freedom of speech, press, and religion for all persons. The right of assembly and the right to petition the government were protected only for "the people" - white, male, citizen landowners.
So it takes the State of Connecticut two years to reinstate a carry license because of administrative shortcomings. We all agree that's too long.
But before you claim that anyone on this forum is ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, maybe you'd better first tell all of us what part of the U.S. Constitution is being violated?
Oh, and please don't say "due process" -- his case was heard and disposed of in 30 days. Justice was neither denied or delayed.
I was merely correcting the poster who thought the Founding Fathers intended to protect the right to keep and bear arms for all persons. They intended no such thing. They didn't even protect it for all citizens.
Then why didn't they say that? Why does the 2nd read "the right of the people instead of "the right of certain citizens" or "the right of the classes of citizens named herein"?
You don't even lie well. You really shouldn't make such a hobby of it.
L
That's my question to you. Why didn't they say "the right of all persons" or "the right of all individuals" or "the right of all citizens"?
Well, the obvious answer is, that wasn't who they meant to protect.
The second amendment protected the right of "the people". That phrase, "the people", means a certain group. And who were they? The U.S. Supreme Court defined it in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (my underline):
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
In 1789, "the people" meant white, male, citizen landowners. Period. They were the only ones allowed to vote. They were the only ones who developed a sufficient connection with this country.
Today, of course, "the people" also include non-whites and women. But still not "all individuals" or "all persons" or even "all citizens".
That's twice you insulted me and twice I responded politely. There will not be a third.
Because they meant "the people".
The U.S. Supreme Court defined it in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
Would that be the same SCOTUS that finds a 'right to abortion' in the Constitution? The same Supreme Court which affirmed "separate but equal"? The same Supreme Court of Dred Scott fame?
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive,..
No kidding, Skippy.
That's twice you insulted me
Your Marxist views are what's insulting.
There will not be a third.
Be still my beating heart....
L
If that was indeed their intent, they must have said so. Care to point to the part of the Constitution that limits who gets to enjoy the 2nd Amendment rights? Being very literate people trying to be very clear, surely they must have made it more specific than, say, a phrase as broad as "the people".
Then quote the part of the Constitution defining "the people" of the 2nd Amendment.
Today, of course, "the people" also include non-whites and women.
Which is it, RP? White male citizen landowners, or ... who? You're very fluid as to which applies today, yet claim absolutes each time you type. Does it currently apply to a white male able-bodied 39-year-old citizen seeking to purchase a new M4 from a dealer who lawfully possesses one and is willing to sell if only the BATFE would approve the Form 4 transfer paperwork and accept the $200 tax?
Care to detail how the Constitution differentiates those two groups?
Broad? I just finished posting the U.S. Supreme Court's definition, and they defined it quite narrowly. The Founders knew who they were talking about. If you need a definition from the U.S. Constitution, look no further than Article I, Section 2 (my underline):
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states ..."
Who were they? Who voted? All persons? All individuals? All citizens?
In 1789, they were white, males, citizen landowners. Tell me who else voted back then. Tell me who else belonged in the group, "the people" -- Women? Children? Indians? Slaves? Foreigners? Illegals? Prisoners? The insane?
I'm done explaining. Now it's your turn. You tell me the original meaning of "the people" in 1789 when the second amendment was written. Who's rights were the Founding Fathers protecting?
So free speech doesn't apply to radio, television and the Internet? If it did, that would be a very fluid interpretation according to you.
"Does it currently apply to a white male able-bodied 39-year-old citizen seeking to purchase a new M4 from a dealer who lawfully possesses one and is willing to sell if only the BATFE would approve the Form 4 transfer paperwork and accept the $200 tax?"
By "it" you mean the phrase "the people" in the second amendment? Yes, the phrase "the people" certainly includes him. As a member of a well regulated state Militia, his right to keep and bear Militia-type arms is protected from federal infringement by the second amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.