Posted on 07/06/2007 4:34:01 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
This time, the Supreme Court may have to decide what the Second Amendment means. But how much will really change?
“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.” U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District of Columbia’s stringent gun-control regulations, ruling squarely that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.
In the cultural and legal battle over gun control, the decision was the proverbial shot heard ’round the world.
The ruling—in Parker v. District of Columbia—marked the first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, and it set up a direct conflict among the circuits. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the view that the amendment guarantees only the collective right of organized state militias to bear arms, not an individual’s right. (A 5th Circuit panel found that individuals have gun rights but upheld the regulation in question, so both sides claim that ruling as a victory.)
In May, when the full D.C. Circuit Court refused to grant a rehearing en banc, the stage seemed set for a showdown in the Supreme Court, which has thus far managed to dodge the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms.
According to HLS Professor Mark Tushnet, author of “Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns” (Oxford University Press, 2007), earlier petitions were cluttered by issues that allowed the Court to decline review or avoid the Second Amendment question. But Parker “is more straightforward,” Tushnet says, and the Court will have a tougher time avoiding the issue.
If Parker is the long-awaited “clean” case, one reason may be that lawyers for the National Rifle Association—who helped steer the legal strategy of the plaintiffs and backed them financially—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted the case to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review. For one thing, it is a civil case, not a criminal one, and the six plaintiffs, in the words of NRA President Sandra Froman ’74, are “ordinary people whose lives are impacted by not having the right to protect themselves.” They include a woman who lives in a high-crime area and has been threatened by drug dealers, a gay man assaulted because of his sexual orientation and a special police officer for the Federal Judicial Center.
In addition, the laws challenged in Parker are among the most stringent in the nation: Handguns cannot be registered in the district; those registered before a 1976 ban cannot be carried from one room to another without a license; and any firearm in a home must be kept unloaded and either locked or disassembled.
Also important, says Tushnet, is the fact that because Parker emanates from the District of Columbia, where only federal law applies, it doesn’t involve the overlaying question of whether the Second Amendment applies to a state by way of the 14th Amendment—a question that clouded an earlier case involving one city’s complete ban on handgun possession. He adds that a number of states urged the Court not to take that case, and the solicitor general did the same in another one.
Pro-gun activists like Froman are confident that the Court will hear an appeal by the district in Parker, and they say that they couldn’t have gotten this far without help from an unlikely quarter: liberal law professors. In the past 20 years, several prominent legal scholars known for liberal views, including Professor Laurence Tribe ’66, have come to believe that the Second Amendment supports the individual-rights view. In the 2000 edition of his treatise “American Constitutional Law,” Tribe broke from the 1978 and 1988 editions by endorsing that view. Other liberal professors, including Akhil Reed Amar at Yale Law School and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas at Austin, agree.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Tribe said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
Froman says the fact that Tribe and others reversed their interpretation in recent years has had enormous influence. Indeed, the majority opinion in Parker, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman ’61, referred specifically to Tribe’s revised conclusion.
The 27 words of the Second Amendment may be the most hotly contested in the Constitution. Gun-control advocates and opponents read its tortured syntax entirely differently. Each side resorts to what Tushnet calls “a simplified version of constitutional analysis” to support its viewpoint, looking solely at the wording of the amendment and what the language meant in 1791 rather than at whether society has changed in the meantime and what judicial precedents offer guidance. In “virtually no other area in constitutional law” is analysis done that way, he says, although he’s not sure why.
“There’s very little guidance on what the actual meaning of the Second Amendment is,” says Froman, a Tucson lawyer who was interviewed by the Bulletin when she returned to HLS in early April to speak on a panel. “The courts have talked a lot about the Second Amendment but have always been nibbling around the periphery. There’s never really been ‘Let’s explain and elaborate on what it means.’”
For Anthony A. Williams ’87, who served as mayor of the District of Columbia from 1999 until earlier this year and vigorously enforced the district’s gun laws during his tenure, the meaning of the amendment is unambiguous, no matter what interpretive theory is used. “Let’s take [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s approach,” he says. “I think the framers’ intent was to see to it that [through] militias, states as sovereign entities had a right to arm themselves. To me, it’s not about individuals—it’s about groups.”
But Froman firmly reaches the opposite conclusion: “A lot of people say that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment—the words ‘A well regulated militia …’— limits the active clause pertaining to bearing arms. They want to say that means you can only exercise the right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia, meaning as part of the National Guard, forgetting that the National Guard didn’t exist then.”
“Remember,” Froman adds, “the Second Amendment guarantees a right—it does not confer a right. It’s God-given. It’s natural. The right of self-survival is a basic instinct of any organism.” The Constitution “acknowledges that.”
Tushnet believes that if the Court grants certiorari, it will ultimately overturn the decision of the D.C. panel. “My gut feeling is that there are not five votes to say the individual-rights position is correct,” he says. “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy comes from a segment of the Republican Party that is not rabidly pro-gun rights and indeed probably is sympathetic to hunters but not terribly sympathetic to handgun owners. Then the standard liberals will probably say ‘collective rights.’”
But Tribe is less confident of that prediction. Should the case reach the Supreme Court, he told The New York Times, “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”
If that happens, Tushnet says, it is unlikely to end all gun regulation, because the Court would probably tailor its decision narrowly to reach consensus. The three-judge panel in Parker struck down only D.C.’s tight laws. “Once you recognize [gun ownership] as an individual right, then the work shifts to figuring out what type of regulation is permissible,” he says.
Tushnet says the gun-control debate is an intractable one in which neither side will move, and a constitutional “answer” from the Supreme Court will be something of a nonstarter. Like the arguments over abortion and stem-cell research, he says, the argument over guns is in truth another battle in the culture wars and cannot be solved by constitutional analysis because neither side can be persuaded.
No gun-control strategy with any chance of surviving the political process would have a significant effect on overall gun violence or crime, Tushnet believes. To say so publicly would be the boldest and most honest stand that a major politician or candidate could take, he adds.
The tragic shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech seem to have changed no one’s position: “People responded to it in exactly the way you would expect,” Tushnet says. Supporters of gun control sought stricter laws and better enforcement, and the NRA advocated that teachers and others be armed to protect themselves.
Activists on both sides bear out that observation. Williams believes that the district’s gun laws were having a demonstrable effect on gun-related violence. “When I started as mayor, we had well over 200 homicides a year,” he says. “We brought that down to below 160, so we made serious inroads in reducing violent crime; but still, in many neighborhoods, the situation is horrific.”
Says Froman: “Statistically, the parts of the country with the greatest number of firearms have the lowest rates of violent crime with guns. It’s easy to understand why. Let’s say there were 30 people in this room, and this was a state that allowed people to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, and a criminal walked in. At least half the people in the room would draw down on the criminal. That would be the end of it.”
Froman had nothing to do with guns until, some 25 years ago, someone tried to break into her Los Angeles home. “I was terrified,” she says. “It was a real epiphany for me, for someone who had never been a victim of crime, who never thought I needed to protect myself.” The next day, she walked into a gun shop to purchase a weapon. She has been a staunch gun advocate ever since.
Does Froman ever worry about repercussions, given that she’s at the center of such a heated issue? “I live in a very rural area, at the end of a long driveway,” she says. “People ask me, ‘Don’t you get scared?’ I say, ‘Are you kidding? I have a clear shot all the way to the road.'
One of your quotes clearly supports that contention: "would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." In 1788, there were over three million people in the United States, yet Madison, in Federalist #46, envisioned that only 17% be armed!
There were other quotes that appeared to refer to individuals but were not. Patrick Henry's, "that every man be armed" was pulled out of context -- they were discussing who should arm the state Militia.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Founders wanted the states to maintain and protect an armed citizenry to "execute the Laws of the Union, Suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Furthermore, the Founders did not want the federal government interfering with this armed citizenry. But the armed citizenry was the Militia.
There was nothing stopping any citizen from owning a weapon. In some cases, state constitutions even protected that individual right and some specified "for personal defense".
But that's a whole different issue. We're discussing what, specifically, the second amendment protects. And I say it offered limited protection. That's the way I read it, anyways, and I fear that may be the way the U.S. Supreme Court would read it.
(Thank you for taking the time to put together a quite impressive list of cites, references and quotes.)
Whatever. I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even if we assume all criminals have firearms or no criminals have firearms, what does that have to do with arming the citizenry?
A community or a city may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal. Shouldn't they have the right to implement that (assuming, of course, their state constitution allows that)? I didn't realize the constitution was a check on stupidity.
Look, if the second amendment said, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of all persons to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, then your grammatical anaysis starts to make some sense.
But then the second amendment itself makes no sense -- why even mention a Militia if "all persons" have the right? If "all persons" have the right, certainly the Militia members, drawn from "all persons" would have the right.
My position is that "the people" do not mean "all persons". In order to clarify who "the people" are, the Founders inserted the first clause.
This means that, in 1776, an 85-year-old woman did not have a protected right to keep and bear arms in Virginia. It didn't mean that she COULDN'T have arms in 1776 or that it was illegal for her to have arms in 1776.
"Tell me again why it is not the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms that is protected?"
Because rights are extended to persons, not organizations.
So, you think her RKBA was protected in 1776? What do you offer as proof?
When the most likely criminal threat faced by a person or persons during burglary, robbery, rape, murder, etc is a criminal with a firearm, how is it that the right of self-defense precludes arms?
And a socialist answered:
So if the citizens of Wilmette, Illinois want to live in a gun free community, they should not have the freedom to make that decision?
"We the People" made that decision about our supreme Law of the Land in the Constitution of the United States.
Part of that supreme law [the 2nd] says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The 14th reiterates that States cannot deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law.
Wilmette's 'law' violates the 14th's due process clause [guns are property used to defend life & liberty] as well as the 2nd.
So no, the socialists in control of Wilmette's government do not have the power to prohibit arms. They are trumped by our Constitution, by our guaranteed right to a Republican Form of Government.
A community or a city may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal. Shouldn't they have the right to implement that (assuming, of course, their state constitution allows that)? I didn't realize the constitution was a check on stupidity.
Our Constitution is indeed a check on majority rule stupidity.
A community [like the Amish] may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal, and persuade their members to disarm themselves.
-- They do not have the power to implement that stupidity in local or state law.
Let's start with the Henry quote.
Here's the rest of what he said, that puts it in context:
But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?
I've found a source at Findlaw that takes the tact of calling this quote "out of context". It's an Amici Curiae filed in response to District of Columbia vs Parker by none other than the Center for Handgun Control - why, that's Sarah Brady's outfit! What a startling coincidence!
Obviously, the court disagreed with that, among other things the lawyers for this whacko outfit contended.
The left likes to say that the case law is "settled", perhaps in the sense that Dred Scott settled case law.
No, the worm is turning, methinks, and it is well nigh high time the Supreme Court addressed this issue head on.
Moving on, I see you're playing with numbers here. The reason they're invoking the "half a million" figure is because that's all the people that had guns available at the time! Even in the subsequent quote above by Patrick Henry, he admits total armament by the populace is "still far from being the case"!
There weren't many women who had guns (although I'm sure a fair number of them could handle them quite well), and there weren't many kids armed to the teeth, unlike today's inner city kids.
No, the argument was, should worse come to worst, everyone who had a gun could, or maybe even would, be there. In today's clime, it's estimated that some 80 million gun owners possessing 270 million firearms. Were our Founders around today to write or speak this, that (80 million) is undoubtedly the figure they'd use.
Yes, the Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, and indeed, the Constitution itself, is an anti-Federal document, in that it sets out the limits that the Federal Government was supposed to observe with regard to "the People".
What I want to know is, why are so many Federales agitating so anxiously against what you agree is a States Rights area? I've seen them invoking the Commerce clause, the Supremacy clause, and maybe even the Santa Clause, to crush this seemingly completely.
The question is, why? What is their reason for doing so. Are they just looking out for the safety and comfort and the Citizenry? Or, is there an ulterior motive at work?
If they were so concerned about our welfare and scrupulously observing the Constitution, why, then, haven't they addressed the Border problem?
Although you may think I'm going off on a tangent here, the two are not unrelated.
It comes down to, once again, the inalienable fact that the Citizenry has a right to protect itself, be it from foreign invaders or domestic usurpers who flash their own brand of tyranny, and that if those who govern us cannot trust us with the guns, then we cannot trust them with the political power to "lead" us.
It is that simple.
CA....
I was waiting for that.
OK - would you agree that crime is often committed by criminals with firearms, further - people are often killed or wounded by criminals with firearms. And getting held up or robbed at gunpoint is not a victimless crime.
Let me know what you think.
It was out of context, that's a fact, and I don't care if Satan himself cited it as out of context -- it doesn't make it any less true. In context it means, "that every man in a Militia be armed". I can cite the entire quote, IN context, if you wish.
"No, the argument was, should worse come to worst, everyone who had a gun could, or maybe even would, be there.
The situation you're referring to -- a tyrannical federal government -- was to be dealt with by the state Militias. Which is why the states wanted to forbid the federal government from infringing on the state's Militias. There are a number of quotes dealing with this.
Sure, perhaps everyone and their mother would take up arms against a tryrannical federal government. Great. But that wasn't the plan for protecting the states from this possibility.
"and it is well nigh high time the Supreme Court addressed this issue head on."
I strongly disagree. There's is not near enough support for individual rights.
Besides, why do you want five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the second amendment for everyone? Let's say they rule an individual right. Fine. Victory!
Now they rule that "bear arms" does not include concealed carry. Or "arms" do not include handguns. Or "keep arms" means keep in a state armory.
Now what? Certainly if some state Supreme Court rules that way today it only affects that state. The residents can always move to another state (the beauty of federalism).
But a U.S. Supreme Court ruling affects all citizens. The first amendment protectiion of nude dancing under free speech applies to all states. Ditto abortion.
So will a lousy U.S. Supreme Court decision on guns.
"The question is, why? What is their reason for doing so. Are they just looking out for the safety and comfort and the Citizenry?"
The impetus behind the federal NFA, GCA, and AWB all came from the states. States were regulating certain weapons, but they were being frustrated by the weapons being smuggled in from other states or from foreign countries. So they petitioned the feds to regulate the interstate and international commerce of these weapons.
"why haven't they addressed the Border problem?"
I don't think the feds see it as a problem. They see it as cheap labor (for industry) and potential votes. Plus, the bulk of the illegal's expenses are being picked up by the states (welfare, schooling, incarceration, medical care), so it's a win-win-win-win-win for the feds.
Your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is flawed. How does the 2nd Amendment limit the right only to those qualified to serve in the militia? The first part is explanatory only and NOT restrictive. I mean come on, this is the BILL OF RIGHTS were talking about... not the Bill of Restrictions.
Let’s do it this way... I know you support gun control. That’s fine. I’ll even agree with you on it as long as there are absolutely ZERO exemptions to disarmament. That includes, military, all government and every other entity in the US... Because when that happens, I’ll build a bunch of firearms, get a trustworthy group together and we’ll take over and run things to our liking. Now, is this what you really want? Trust me, if the gun grabbers and people who want “reasonable gun restrictions” keep their agenda up, this is exactly what will happen. If not me, someone else will do it.
Here’s the problem, the technological genie is out of the bottle. People like me know how to build guns ranging from single shots all the way up to machine guns and even artillery as well as ammo for it all. Hell, I’ve even designed efficient new systems myself. If we ban guns, I’d build everything I can and take over. Exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent. Who would be able to stop me?
This is the flaw that the gun grabbers don’t get. They may get their wish one day, but on that day, there will be the first emperor of the US sitting with all the firepower and people like you, and others who want to play word games will be trying to figure out what to do.
But that’s okay... keep up the pressure. Unintended consequenses are amusing.
Mike
Often? Well, armed robbery is always committed with a firearm (by definition). Burglary is hardly ever committed with a firearm. Other crimes may use a weapon, but not necessarily a firearm.
Hey, it varies. What's your point?
"people are often killed or wounded by criminals with firearms."
Often? Like more than 50%? I'm not too sure about that. Again, you have a point?
"And getting held up or robbed at gunpoint is not a victimless crime."
True.
Now, if I were to say to you that "very rarely, if ever" a criminal uses a firearm when committing those crimes, would you support laws disarming the general citizenry? Do you see from that example how irrelevant your hypothetical is?
I offer for proof that she has a protected right to keep and bear arms today, enforced by the courts of Virginia.
Several states use language nearly identical to that in the Second Amendment. Are there any which define the "people" in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as consisting only of people eligible for militia duty and protecting their arms only in the exercise of those duties? It would go a long way toward supporting your position if that was the rule rather than a rare exception.
With all respect, your understanding of the entire Bill of Rights is flawed. Did you know (many don't) that the Rill of Right, as written, was a restriction only on the federal government and it was that way for almost 150 years?
After the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the federal government couldn't restrict the press and free speech but states could, and did. States didn't require a search warrant. And states who had constitutions that required a warrant could still use evidence obtained in an illegal search. That some states has publicly funded state religions until the 1800's?
Now, against that backdrop we have the second amendment. The second amendment was only a restriction on the federal government (still is, by the way). Back in 1792, it only protected the right of white, male, adult citizens, 18-45 years of age, to keep and bear arms as part of a state Militia from being infringed by the federal government. This was to make sure that the federal government did not disarm the states and assume power.
Any individual right to keep and bear arms by any person in a state was protected by that state's constitution (still is, by the way).
"Let’s do it this way... I know you support gun control."
Actually I don't. I ackowledge that both the federal and state governments have the constitutional power to reasonably regulate guns, just as they have the power to reasonably regulate speech or any other of our natural rights. Sometimes I think they go too far.
"People like me know how to build guns ... Who would be able to stop me?
Uh, the BATFE? They stopped Mr. Robert W. Stewart, Jr for doing just that. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
Negroes have a protected right to keep and bear arms today, enforced by the courts of Virginia. Non-citizens have a a protected right to keep and bear arms today, enforced by the courts of Virginia (e.g., Cho Seung-Hui).
I specifically asked you if you thought her RKBA was protected in 1776 and what you would offer as proof. Do you have an answer to that question?
"Several states use language nearly identical to that in the Second Amendment."
What, do you mean today? Yes. So what does that have to do with the meaning of "the people" as it was defined in 1776, Mr. Original Intent?
Here's the bottom line. In 1776, "the people" meant a particular group, not every individual. Meaning a collective, not individual right.
Now, if you want to say, "Yes that's true robertpaulsen, but that's not the way it is today", fine. At least, then, we understand each other.
The language used today in many state constitutions is exactly the same language used in the Second Amendment and in many cases dates from the same period. Yet I am aware of no state whatever which has the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to refer only to people performing militia duties. How do you explain the fact that there is no indication whatever that ANY state used the term "people" in the fashion that you suggest was being used in the Second Amendment.
It is an accepted practice in language study to expect that contemporaneous usage will reflect the meaning of terms used in an historical context. Please supply at least one example of a state using the same term, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", meaning ONLY people in the militia collective.
Furthermore, your claim that a narrowing of the class constituting "the people" creates a collective is identical to claiming that the entire population of persons would be considered a "collective". The term "collective" has been used to deny standing to ANY individual. Even a narrow interpretation of "the people" in the Second Amendment in no way allows one to conclude that the members of the protected class do not have individual standing to have their right enforced.
Collectivists will engage in all manner of contortions to avoid the plain, simple truth.
The liberal majority did, at least. They love their New Deal.
The Constitution and it’s attendant documents show exquisite evidence of much definition of it’s salient points, ostensibly so that those who followed would have little difficulty understanding what they were trying to accomplish, and what they were offering.
Given this, why didn’t they, in any and all of these documents, define for us (and indeed, themselves) just what they meant by a term like “militia”? Why didn’t they say only landholders, or Freemen, or all males 18-45?
Sure, in private memoranda guys like Col. Mason said, “...it is all the people, save a few politicians”, which is interesting, and indeed inspiring. But were talking about the documents that were designed to guide the ship of state. Why would they stumble over this and leave such confusion to a flummoxed profession like lawyers? (I think we all know the answer to that one!)
No, they knew what they were doing, and we know what they were doing. As long as there are lawyers, you will see people with the uncanny ability to parse anything. Even something as simple as the word “is”.
All those founders whose quotes I’ve offered up time and again refer to the “militia” as “all the people”. Not some of the people, not excluding women (or children!), not chattel, but “all the people”.
Why would they do that? Was it a mass Freudian slip committed by all of them? Was it mere linguistic sloth by all of them? We’re talking about men who were so passionate about this, they literally laid their lives on the line for it. Great Men make mistakes, yes, but not stupid ones like this.
And consider, since they, almost to a man, were most distrustful of government, why would they take this hard-ass view of the federal government, and give state governments, who are just as prone to abuse by it’s political elite as the feds, a pass?
They were distrustful of governments at all levels, recognizing that by definition, and by their mere existence, they were a necessary evil, while being possessed of the hope that, “that government is best which governs least”.
While they were most distrustful of the federal level, given that it’s size (it was to cover all the land) was doubtless most susceptible to corruption, they were wary of states, and indeed, most local governments.
That is who they were.
And as for the nebulous phrase, “a well-regulated militia”, you should know that Washington, among others, took a dim view of the militia, considering them not very reliable, prone to ignoring orders, and at times not even bothering to show up.
Utilizing them was the plan our Founders had for repelling enemies, both Foreign and Domestic?
I don’t think so.
CA....
Quit asking. I already did. See my post #315. It only protected people in the militia collective. And please don't say that the 1776 Virginia State Constitution therefore implies that it was illegal for everyone else, including 85-year-old women.
"Furthermore, your claim that a narrowing of the class constituting "the people" creates a collective"
It's an individual right which applies to a particular group of people collectively. It's like the right of "the people" to assemble or the right of "the people" to vote. It's an individual right which applies to a particular group of people collectively.
I call that a collective right. I don't care what you call it. You know what I mean.
Why didn't they say the freedom to print newspapers? The right to free political speech? The right to keep and bear muskets? The power to foster commerce among the several states? And a whole bunch of others.
Because they wanted to leave some flexibility. If the definition of "the people" changed, then it was easy to implement. But in 1792, they did not mean "all persons" or even "all citizens". That was the original meaning of "the people" in 1792.
Now, if you believe in a living, breathing constitution that means whatever we want it to mean, by all means, speak up and say so. That IS what you believe, isn't it?
"All those founders whose quotes I’ve offered up time and again refer to the “militia” as “all the people”."
Ah, no. First of all they never said, "all the people". Second, the term "the people" meant something very specific -- perhaps if they used the term "enfranchised body politic" it would have been clearer. Third, they could not have meant "all the people" since so many people were excluded from the protection of the right.
"why would they take this hard-ass view of the federal government, and give state governments, who are just as prone to abuse by it’s political elite as the feds, a pass?"
Because they trusted their state and had much more contol over it. If you think about it, they WERE the state.
These wealthy, white, male, citizen landowners were the only voters. Are they going to vote to take away their own guns? Most state constitutions didn't even protect arms. Again, who's going to write a state law taking them away?
"Utilizing them was the plan our Founders had for repelling enemies, both Foreign and Domestic?"
That was the plan.
Actually there is no regulation on speech. You are confusing restriction vs. punishment of using the right to the harm of others.
I’ll use the anti’s favorite argument. I CAN yell “Fire!” in a theater if I want to. There is nothing to stop me from doing so except that there is a punishment outlined for doing so by causing a panic and possible injury of innocents.
As long as my exercise of a right doesn’t violate the rights of another, they really have no ability to restrict that right. The ONLY exception to that rule is the 2nd Amendment. And it is a very flawed situation when you have people dictating need in regards to exercising a right.
As for reasonable restriction... that is BS. There is no “reasonable” in restricting rights AT ALL. The only reasonable restriction is what I mention above. When my right violates another’s rights, then there is a problem. If I want to own a 155 mm howitzer or dozens of machine guns, you may consider not allowing that reasonable. I challenge you to prove that by doing so, I am violating another persons rights.
Going to your first comment, yes, I am very well aware of exactly what the Bill of Rights entails... and NO, it wasn’t just a restriction on the Federal Government. It outlined which rights were specifically protected from infringement by the Federal Government and through ratification fell upon the states to adapt as well. Considering that search warrants came about due to court cases and not outlined in the Constitution, your example is flawed.
Mike
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.