http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070310_gun_decision.pdf
NRA president Sandra Froman HLS ’74
Staff photo Kris Snibbe/Harvard News Office
Posted on 04/13/2007 7:22:12 PM PDT by neverdem
Like a courtroom version of “High Noon,” legal guns are squaring off this year in a confrontation over the Second Amendment.
And whoever wins, the battle will touch off a longtime culture war that rivals Roe v. Wade, said National Rifle Association (NRA) President Sandra Froman in an April 5 visit to Harvard.
Roe v. Wade is the U.S. Supreme Court decision that in 1973 affirmed a woman’s right to abortion, and it intensified a cultural debate that continues today.
The debate over firearms, and how to interpret the 27 words of the Second Amendment, carries the same power to divide, according to Froman, a 1974 graduate of Harvard Law School (HLS). Her evening lecture in Langdell Hall, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: What’s the State of Second Amendment Law?” was sponsored by the Harvard Law School Forum.
On two counts, Froman is a sharpshooter on the issue of guns. As NRA president, she is the chief public voice of the most prominent U.S. organization advocating gun rights. Add in that Froman is a crack pistol shot and a certified NRA firearms instructor.
She also knows her law, as a 33-year legal veteran who maintains a private practice in Tuscon, Ariz. (She still needs her day job; the NRA presidency, last held by Charlton Heston, is honorary, and includes no salary.)
The HLS Forum’s Benjamin Gould introduced Froman to an audience of 35, saying that Froman calls the 136-year-old NRA “a civil rights organization [that upholds] the one right that protects all the others.”
Froman’s remarks, intended for law students, were technical. But she averred that there are “few more relevant” rights today than those protected by the Second Amendment, because it gets to the fundamentals of what constitutes individual freedom.
In contrast to the amendment’s importance — or perhaps because of it — higher courts have generally avoided all but the most narrow issues involving guns. It’s a classic example of what Froman called “the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken “only once in a meaningful way” about the Second Amendment, she said, in a 1939 case called U.S. v. Miller, about the legality of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. But the case does little to inform the present debate; both pro- and anti-gun groups claim it supports their side.
The present debate over the Second Amendment divides opponents into two main camps. One holds that the amendment supports an individual’s right to keep and bear firearms; another that it only describes a collective right — that is, only organized militias can have guns.
And now the time is right for the two groups to clash head-on, said Froman. For one, the confiscation of private firearms by the New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina sharpened public awareness — and prompted a lawsuit against New Orleans that the NRA is a party to.
More importantly, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the D.C. Circuit ruled in March that a longtime ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The 58-page majority ruling, on a 2-1 vote, was an explicit argument for the individual-rights camp. “If anything in the world can violate the Second Amendment, the D.C. gun ban would do it,” said Froman.
But some other federal circuit courts have recently ruled in favor of the collective-rights camp. This high-level debate, prompted by Parker v. the District of Columbia, said Froman, could set the stage for the first Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment in 70 years.
The D.C. case is “a direct shot at compelling a discussion of the meaning of the Second Amendment,” she said. “Sooner or later, the Supreme Court is going to have to grant a Second Amendment case.”
If that happens, and the individual-rights argument prevails, said Froman, “every federal, state, and local [gun] law would be presumed to be invalid.”
Such a decision, she said, would roll through the United States, with its cultural divide on the gun issue, “like a tsunami.”
On April 5, Froman rolled through her law school alma mater in calmer fashion, noting with surprise that the coffee for students is now free.
She was a law student at Harvard when “The Paper Chase” was being filmed on campus, and got turned down for a part as an extra because “I didn’t look like a law student” by Hollywood standards. “Here it is 35 years later,” joked Froman, “and I don’t look like the president of the NRA.”
She’s the second woman to hold that office; the first was the aptly and euphoniously named Marion Hammer, who served from 1995 to 1998.
In her lecture, Froman said 72 percent of Americans presently favor the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. But if a Supreme Court ruling supports the collective-rights argument, that majority could shrink to around 20 percent as the culture conforms to a new direction for American gun ownership.
In the meantime, said Froman, “guns tend to be as hotly contested in our culture as abortion and gay rights.”
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070310_gun_decision.pdf
NRA president Sandra Froman HLS ’74
Staff photo Kris Snibbe/Harvard News Office
Interesting. And it helps explain, perhaps why the NRA was not involved in the case recently decided by the DC Court of Appeals. It makes it likely the SCOTUS won’t be able to dodge the issue much longer.
If they agree with the Appeals Court decision to strike down the gun ban, then it will “roll through the United States, with its cultural divide on the gun issue, ‘like a tsunami’.”
What she doesn’t say, but perhaps fears, is that SCOTUS might well decide, 5-4, against the appeals court. That would be equivalent to the Casey Decision, and would be harder to reverse if we ever get control over our courts again.
I’m not comfortable with undertaking this fight at this time . I would much rather wait until we can get one or two more Constructionist type justices on the SCOTUS . The current SCOTUS appears to be making rulings based on popular opinions, as opposed to strict interpretation .
I could easily see them affirming the right , but asserting the right only pertains to single shot weapons , or some similar middle ground BS like that .
Am I alone in this assessment ?
You are correct!
No candidate will publicly denounce AWB2 . The debate has to be redefined starting with the fact the true AW’s are already highly regulated . That’s all they have to say, and the debate goes away in a manner that’s palatable to the general public.
Let’s face it , the majority of people will come down against AW’s everytime , so why not redefine the debate and get rid of that Liberal anti-gun buzzword .
It’s that simple .
They need to stop letting the anti’s and Libs define the debate with BS buzzwords .
I agree. We need another replacement. A recent 5-4 decision reafirmed this.
Thanks Ray ! This has me worried, and I hope the NRA understands this SCOTUS trend/tendency .
"Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal."
It's on the link in comment# 1, and it's on page 2 of the pdf. They were involved with Parker et al. initially at the district court, but backed out because they feared that the court composition wasn't ready mentioning a 4 - 5 SCOTUS decision against an individual right, IIRC. Oddly, I believe the first NY Times story after Parker mentioned a 1998 decision in which Ginsberg(sp?) and Souter agreed, along with Rehnquist(sp?) and Scalia, that the Second Amendment meant some thing more than "mere soldiering."
See comment# 10. It's apparently not as bad as you think. The Militia Act hasn't been repealed. The unorganized militia is in the U.S. Code. Single shot weapons would have marginal utility for the unorganized militia.
Somehow I have great difficulty envisioning long lines of folks lined up to turn in their guns under any condition. Fact is, I'd welcome a bad decision. Tired of all this piece-meal, back and forth crap.
Regardless of the make-up of the SCOTUS should this be heard, I'm willing to bet all I own (and then some) that common sense will prevail.
that’s like saying freedom of speech would only refer to those who speak the king’s english...
dred scott decisions by the supreme court can be overruled by the other two branches of gubmint...
they deny a right, congress can get it back through law and the executive can refuse to enforce it...
teeman8r
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The “one right that protects all others” is the right to property.
Thanks for the links.
And what protects your property?
Having a gun is a property right...isn’t it?
So all that the Second Amendment does is protect your right to owning a gun...your right to maintain a gun as your property.
Essentially, most of the Amendments on the Bill of Rights are about protecting property...from property in your thoughts and beliefs, to property in your guns and other personal effects.
Which is as it should be. But, I too am afraid of the court taking the popular opinion instead of what is the correct (and very obvious, to any thinking person) interpretation of the 2nd.
Why is it that from the 1780s until the 1930s, one could carry a loaded pistol on their person without fear of arrest? Did the 2nd change? The answer is no; unconstitutional interpretations have prevailed since then.
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.