Posted on 06/12/2007 4:23:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises By Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer June 12, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.
"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."
Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.
"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."
Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today. Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.
"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
This is an honest Liberal idea. I actually like it. Of course I think it would fail miserably, at least it would be intellectually honest.
No, this guy is saying the complete opposite of what the "living Constitution" crowd says. He is saying exactly what Anton Scalia says, that the Constitution means what it says, and if you don't like it there is a process to change it.
Opinions are like... Well we all know.
Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.
Modern society can be as ambivalent as it wants, that doesn't give the moderns the right to infringe my rights.
Oh, I forgot this is 21st century America where 50.1% of the voters can tell the other 49.9% what to eat, drink, smoke, what trees can be cut on one's own property, etc., etc., etc.
Don’t you just love it when liberals like Wittes use “we” and profess to speak for us all?
You are right. The “living document” proponents would find a court to rule that the second amendment doesn’t apply to citizens, only to state militias (Nat’l Guard).
That's the one...
In forty years, we've only had three Amendments ratified, one was in the aftermath of a Presidential assassination, another was to limit Congressional pay in the wake of a term limits push, and another was to extend voting rights to people old enough to die in an unpopular war. It's damned difficult to amend the Constitution.
I'd love to see left-wing money, time, and effort be piddled away on this Quixotic quest. That would be resources not spent on Rats, that would clearly label that party as being anti-freedom. It would do as much for us as the gay marriage issue did in 2004. It would be there for many years, and would spearhead our retaking Congress. The only reason we have not got fillibuster and veto proof majorities in Congress, is that we have people in "normal" America who think that electing Rats will not impact their rights.
"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government,"
"This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."
But, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, - "challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights."
He said:
"The techniques that are used to show that the Second Amendment really doesn't have any contemporary relevance are absolutely available to anybody."
Citing the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," Barnett argued [sarcastically] :
"Sure, it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder." [Indian Wars anyone?]
Sure, - advocates of warrantless searches could make an "appeal to changing circumstances," on the basis that the Fourth Amendment is "archaic [and] we don't need it anymore," he added in further sarcasm.
Barnett recommended that his opposition [gun control advocates] should "not favor methods of interpretation" to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment, methods - "you wouldn't want to put in the hands of political opponents."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barnett is a staunch defender of our 2nd. and the article is, in part, a mischaracterization of his position on the issue. - I'm looking forward to his own rebuttal, and will post it when it's published.
I don’t think that he is smoking anything, given that he for the most part hits the facts on the head. He is correct and honest that the 2nd is an individual right, that gun control laws could (more correctly, should) be considered unconstitutional and that it is meant to protect against the federal government (among other threats). I don’t know if he dillousional or what when he states that we are much more ambivalent about gun ownership or that we no longer believe that we must protect against the federal government.
You are right in part. The "right" pre-existed the Second Amendment and the Constitution. Repealing the Second Amendment removes an explicit limitation of government power.
But the same logic which allowed the author to properly read the protection afforded by the Amendment, will operate to argue that the lack of a prohibition could in no way grant the federal government a power which it previously lacked.
One would have to argue that the ratifying states, which refused to approve the Constitution without a Second Amendment, had somehow overlooked an explicit power to disarm the people.
Here's an example which might meet the author's tyrannical desire:
"Amendment xyz: 1) The Second Amendment is hereby repealed.
2) The government shall have the power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms in any way that the Congress shall approve."
No government can be granted the power to repeal an unalienable right. The injustice done to a lion by removing its claws and teeth is the same injustice done to a person by infringing his right to keep and bear arms. Either lion or man is fully justified in opposing such injustice with the use of lethal force.
The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that the peoples rights to life, liberty, or property are not to be infringed, abridged or denied, -- by any level of government in the USA.Yep.
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power.Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Exhibit A: I live in Houston, TX around two temporary section 8 apartments for the Katrina evacuees. These lazy good for nothing bums are raping, robbing, and murdering... and are the product of the Liberal Plantation of New Orleans.
If they did repeal it, it would work as well as Prohibition.
What a strange choice of words for an anti-gun guy, one wonders if he has a secret.
Not really ... armed neighbors didn't treat the LEOs to a rain of gunfire when they tried to enforce prohibition as will happen if they try to enforce the repeal of the 2nd Amendment ... it WOULD be a civil war
The left accuses any opponent of wanting to do “X” making the case that “X” is terrible and only cruel people would do it (i.e. a “Police State”, monitoring terrorist emails and phone calls, eroding free speech, what have you). Then, when in power, the left DOES this; i.e IRS/FBI/BATF ‘investigations’, warrantless wire taps against political opponents (they do that out of power also), monitoring EVERYONE’s email(but not the terrorists), thought crimes (aka “Hate Crimes”), etc.
With the knowledge you provided about Barnett, I can imagine what Wittes was thinking when Barnett made this assertion.
Barnett: “challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society’s circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights.”
Wittes: (unspoken): “Sure, so long as we leftists are the ones deciding WHAT will be changed and so long as it only affects our opponents.”
As we have seen many times, the left does not believe gun laws apply to them. Witness Sara Brady's straw purchase of a rifle for her son, CA politicians being armed/CCW holders with private security forces, etc. It is like carbon credits; the "little people" are forced to ration while Al Gore flies in private jets. Mr. Barnett was probably being sarcastic, but I believe his sarcasm fell on deaf ears.
Thanks for the info and I agree with you on the mischaracterization. I will have to research him.
Yeah, that’d really be the ticket for these guys!
CA....
That is, until they needed to repeal “prohibition” the basic concept of repealing the First Amendment, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or any other would be not be practical/possible/thought of/considered seriously.
However, thanks to the early 20th century liberals (who also gave us the 17th Amendment stripping states of their right to appointment Senators!) and the income tax, we now face the ability to repeal the Second Amendment.
As soon as the press and socialists get enough subdued prisoners (er, taxpayers) indoctrinated to get 51% of the voters to strip the Electoral college and small states of their power.
Come on and take’em from me.
I’ll leave the “laser” light on for ya.
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.