There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws

News By Us ^ | Dec 02, 06 | John Longenecker

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

Whoops, I meant to post this in response to the article, not the comments made by groanup. Sorry, Groanup

[groanup]

The prevailing leftist view is that the 2nd Amendment only limits the Federal government, and that "the people" meant the States collectively.

Don't most state consitutions provide language similar to the 2A but at the same time preserve the state's right to regulate concealed weapons?

[Cobra64]

Were Thomas Jefferson or any of the Framers alive today they'd feel free to carry concealed in NYC or Washington, D.C.

Ummm. I doubt they would carry concealed. Rewind about 100 years ago when dual Colt single sixes were worn.

[Neil E. Wright]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

---

±

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

[supercat]

I don't have a problem with someone with a record of violence not being allowed to carry a handgun

I would consider disarmament of criminals to be lawful when, and only when, those criminals are slaves of the state. The Second Amendment clearly never applied to slaves, and the Thirteenth Amendment allows states to enslave criminals.

Otherwise, those with violent tendencies would be advised against cerrying firearms as doing so might prompt them to do something deadly foolish, but generally the people who shouldn't have guns don't try to get them, and those that do try will often get them regardless of what the law says.

[KeyesPlease]

The question the Supremes were asked to answer in the Miller case was whether or not a sawed off shotgun was appropriate for militia use.

The implication being that if a sawed off shotgun was found to be appropriate for militia use then Miller's conviction would be overturned.

Unfortunately, and I don't recall the specifics as to why, Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon. The court found, because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, that such a shotgun was not appropriate for militia use.

Tha antis try to twist what is clearly written in the opinion to suit their own "collective right" interpretive wishes.

[supercat]

Ummm. I doubt they would carry concealed. Rewind about 100 years ago when dual Colt single sixes were worn.

Firearms would more likely have been carried openly in the days when doing so wouldn't cause hysterical panic, but I would expect carry (especially of blades) was often somewhere between open and concealed. Not trying to hide one's armament, but not trying to overly advertise it either.

[robertpaulsen]

"So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right."

All governments? I thought the second amendment only applied to the federal government -- in other words, the federal government could not infringe the RKBA.

I also thought each state has their own gun laws, guided by their state constitution. This is why some states have concealed carry, for example, and why some don't.

Am I wrong?

[AndyTheBear]

Don't most state consitutions provide language similar to the 2A but at the same time preserve the state's right to regulate concealed weapons?

I don't know. The critical question is whether the language of such constitutions presupposed they had the power to legislate such matters, or like the 2nd Amendment presumed it was already an inherent right beyond their interference -- at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.

[robertpaulsen]

"Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon."

He wasn't there. He flew the coop.

"The court found, because of a lack of evidence to the contrary, that such a shotgun was not appropriate for militia use."

The U.S. Supreme Court, not having the authority to make that determination, kicked it back to the lower court for them to hear testimony. Since Miller was gone to parts unknown, they let it drop.

No decisions were made one way or the other. But since the U.S. Supreme Court asked the question, that gives us an idea what they were thinking.

[supercat]

The question the Supremes were asked to answer in the Miller case was whether or not a sawed off shotgun was appropriate for militia use... Unfortunately, and I don't recall the specifics as to why, Miller didn't present any evidence of a sawed off shotgun's utility as a militia weapon.

Miller and Layton were not under indictment at the time of U.S. v. Miller. Basically, the question before the Court was "Is there any combination of evidence that might conceivably be presented which would allow a conviction consistent with the Second Amendment." Judges must make such determination must be made without relying upon any personal knowledge that might be controversial. The Court ruled that it was conceivable that such a combination of evidence might be offered.

What should have then happened would have been for the indictment against Layton to have been reinstated (Miller was dead at that point), and for Layton to have introduced at trial evidence of the shotgun's military usefulness. Unless the state could rebut such evidence (doubtful), Layton would then have been acquitted.

Instead, however, as soon as it won the right to indict Layton, the government decided to offer a plea-bargain instead. I'm unaware of any other time the government has offered a plea-bargain after winning a court case. Are there other examples?

[supercat]

He wasn't there. He flew the coop.

Since he wasn't under indictment, he had no obligation to show up.

Since Miller was gone to parts unknown, they let it drop.

Miller was dead. His co-defendant was not, however; the government for some reason decided to offer a plea-bargain instead of going ahead with prosecution and have some creative reporting fill in the gaps.

[robertpaulsen]

"To make the argument complete, this notion needs to be discredited"

If the second amendment applied to the states, wouldn't all the states have to have the same laws? Wouldn't they all have to allow concealed carry, for example? Doesn't due process mean that all citizens are treated equitably -- that we don't have two sets of laws?

Think of the first amendment. Or the fourth amendment. Don't they apply to all citizens in all states equally?

[Solitar]

Ping to those who might support Condi Rice

Of all the potential Presidential Candidates in the Republican Party, only Condoleezza Rice would understand and agree with the above article and defend our Second Amendment rights. She is a self-described "Second Amendment absolutist".

From her interview with Larry King on May 11, 2005

KING: "We have a Second Amendment. People can own guns. By the way, what do you think about gun control?"

RICE: "The way I come out of my own personal experience, in which in Birmingham, Alabama, my father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against White Knight Riders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there, armed. And so I'm very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment. I'll tell you that I know that if Bull Conner had had lists of -- of registered weapons, I don't think my father and his friends would have been sitting at the head of the community, defending the community."

KING: "So you would not change the Second Amendment? You would not..."

RICE: "I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution. The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

KING: "But doesn't having the guns, while it's protection, also leads to people killing people?"

RICE: "Well, obviously, the sources of violence are many, and we need to -- to get at the source of the violence. Obviously, I'm very much in favor of things like background checks, and you know, controlling it at gun shows. And there are lots of things we can do. But we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that our Founding Fathers thought very important. On this one, I think that they understood that there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Alabama, when in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

KING: "Did you see him take the gun?"

RICE: "Oh, absolutely. Every -- every night he and his -- he and his friends kind of organized a little brigade."

[Silly]

Awesome post, thanks for the ping.

[Kakaze]

Thanks. I din't know that about Condi, since god knows I can't stomach larry king:)

[Candor7]

In Vermont we have sensible gun laws: NONE!

[umgud]

Good and accurate summary.

[elhombrelibre]

Thanks for the Ping. Generally, I've a high regard for her, and I am very much impressed with her support for the whole constitution. It's good to see an academic defend the 2nd Amendment with personal, existential, realistic examples of what the heck we're talking about when we say don't truncate the constitutions for the latest fashion. I'm a little troubled that her support for Israel lately has been tepid, but I'm impressed with her support for Iraqis freedom. And, finally, I think she's cute.

[robertpaulsen]

"Unless the state could rebut such evidence (doubtful)"

Let's see. A) We have a federal law saying that <18" shotguns need a stamp, the reason being that they're used by criminals.

B) You're saying that Layton would go to court and somehow present evidence that his <18" shotgun was useful to a militia and therefore protected by the second amendment.

C) Let's say that happens. Then what? Same thing? The lower court dismisses the case then the prosecution takes it back to the Supreme Court?

Does that one lower court judge have the authority to rule that, based on the evidence, a <18" shotgun is indeed a militia weapon and thereby negate a federal statute? Doesn't Congress make that determination?