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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
Are you saying that the 2A only applies to state militias?
Well, a “right” doesn’t make much sense if it depends on whether the government (fed or state) has selected a person to exercise that right - does it?
In _Miller_, there was absolutely no discussion about whether Mr. Miller was part of a militia of any kind; to the contrary, his weapons possession charge plainly stemmed from criminal activity. If the Supreme Court, and any court along the path of that case, had ANY inkling that the 2ndA had the limitation you refer to, that would have been the first thing used to throw out his appeal. The question addressed at length was not whether Mr. Miller was one of “the people”, but whether the weapon in question had any militia suitability.
In other Supreme Court cases oft recounted (names escape me at this millisecond, you know them), there are plenty of direct and indirect references to the 2ndA applying to a whole lotta people that you put outside the “white male landowner” and “state militia member” limitation.
Yes, that’s the premise which he commits an enormous amount of time, effort and verbiage to promoting.
Well he could save a lot of effort if he would just ask someone. LOL.
...to debate the self-proclaimed FRexpert on all things RKBA...well...that way lies madness Joe.
walk away Joe...just walk away.
;0)
I see your still glossing over the unorganized militia again in the composition descriptions.
I asked your opinion, not the current published sophistry! (You could have just said “No..” ;)
Voting for males came from the tradition of military service granting the vote for non-land owners. We even see the remnants of that today whereby young Mexican men of good character serve in the Armed Forces of the US of A and then become US citizens.
The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Correct. But that's what it's referring to.
"and my neighbors and I are quite capable of being "well regulated"
Nice try.
The second amendment protects those individuals and those arms that are associated with a state militia from federal infringement.
The protection of individuals and arms that are not associated with a state militia is provided by the constitutions of each state.
The Constitution _does_ get to define what constitutes a “well-regulated militia”. Those who wrote the 2ndA soon thereafter wrote the Militia Act of 1792, so presumably it reflects what they had in mind. Of late, that was replaced with a new definition that defines able-bodied males 18-45 as part thereof, and implemented it via the Selective Service System to register members thereof and the DCM/CMP to train & equip them at their time & expense. Legalise often meaning something other than common vernacular, the term “unorganized militia” is nonetheless legally a part of the militia, and is demonstrably “regulated” to whatever degree Congress deems “well”.
RP, neither the 2ndA, Constitution, nor supporting law require that the “militia” in question be _owned_ by a state; the state may enact officers and provide some support & direction, but from the Constitution’s point of view there is only one “militia” addressed, not diverse “state militias” which you keep insisting decide who gets to exercise a “right”.
Make that "The Congress _does_ get to define".
So the 2A protects mortar and howitzer weapons but not .22’s.
No, it protects “the people”. The “militia” is a subset thereof. You are unable to show any Constitutional verbiage showing “the people” is “the militia”.
An expert on English grammar and usage seems to disagree with you.
You are correct. I meant to say the protection of that right.
"In _Miller_, there was absolutely no discussion about whether Mr. Miller was part of a militia of any kind"
Correct. The case wasn't about Mr. Miller. The case was really about the weapon itself.
"his weapons possession charge plainly stemmed from criminal activity."
His weapons charge was the criminal activity -- he was not charged with the interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun. He was charged with the interstate tranportation of a sawed-off shotgun without a tax stamp.
He claimed that a tax stamp on any weapon was an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.
The "only white land owners had Rights" crap is just another leftist canard that ignores pesky little things like FACTS.
I don't understand "glossing over". The unorganized militia exists. I have no problem with the unorganized militia. I'm simply saying the second amendment doesn't apply to them, that's all.
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.