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.'
"Your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is flawed."
It's a common 'flaw' [read refusal] found in many statists & socialists to abide by Constitutional restraints on gov't.
The southern Statists claimed the Bill of Rights, as written, was a restriction only on the federal government and the socialists now assert it was that way for almost 150 years. Both desperately want it to be that way so that States can ignore individual rights to life, liberty, or property; - in order to prohibit whatever a majority rules 'undesirable'. [guns, gambling, & intoxicants are just some of their favorite targets]
After the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, Article VI made it clear that neither federal, state or local government officials could restrict the individual rights of the people, enumerated or not.
Some states that had publicly funded state religions were 'grandfathered in', but new States had to guarantee a Republican Form of Government.
Now, against that backdrop we have the second amendment. The second amendment was not only a restriction on the federal government but on State and local officials. Back in 1792, it protected the right of all "the people" to keep and bear arms, - in part because a state Militia provided security for a free State.
This was to make sure that the federal government did not disarm the people of the states and assume power.
Any individual right to keep and bear arms by any person in a state was also protected by that state's constitution (much abused by todays socialists/statists by the way).
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.
They'd already defined that stuff.
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.
Of course they did! The Constitution and Bill of Rights was, as I've said, anti-Fed. It was designed to place restrictions upon the government, not upon growth and change of the new country and it's body politic. They doubtless foresaw this.
Ever wonder why your chosen group was thusly construed? Quite apart from the issue of slavery, women had an entirely different role at that time in history. The "working poor" (and the non-working, for that matter), really had other things on their mind, methinks. The most productive, the most successful, were invariably very able-bodied men (who, perchance, happened to be white), and thus most likely to participate in the schemes of society, as their self-interest was most likely at stake. Yes, there were built-in prejudices in society at that time, but that notwithstanding, the framework was laid for successive generations to expand upon and build on that which the Founders produced.
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?
No, I'm not a proponent of that school of thought, but in the above paragraph you yourself give legitimacy to the idea of "change" for definitions to reflect political realities of the time.
"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.
Ah, yes!
George Mason: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
Representative Williamson: "The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons"
Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
You get the idea, I'm sure....
"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?
You are getting closer, robertpaulsen. As I've stated before, they did what they felt they were politically capable of doing. They felt they could best bring their vision into existence by acknowledging, and using, their political capital on the political realities of the time.
They knew, to a man, they could not rework society as it was then. What they could do was give their vision of the birthing nation a chance.
No, they didn't piss off the landowners and the powerful. Why do that? That's committing political hari-kari. They were way too smart for that. Rather, they used the politically powerful as the springboard for the bold and exciting experiment. That's just astute politics, that's all.
Likewise, the use of the term "militia" was undoubtedly used to sway wavering members of the several states to buy what they were trying to sell.
"Utilizing them was the plan our Founders had for repelling enemies, both Foreign and Domestic?"
That was the plan.
Not your best response. Or, most cogent.
CA....
No, I don’t. You seem to want to turn this into a rhetorical debate when the fact of the matter is, criminals use firearms against those who are unarmed - the elderly, women, the weak in general. Ever notice nobody ever breaks into a cop shop and tries to shoot the place up?
I'll just cut to the chase. Using your rules, can I drive drunk? Can I speed? Can I drive recklessly?
Sure, arrest me and throw me in jail if I harm another or violate their rights. But until that happens, can I do those things?
Can I make love to my girlfriend in a public park at noon? Can I walk around nude? Can I masturbate on a park bench? Can I walk around using foul language (at no one in particular)?
Granted, these actions may be rude, offensive, gross, and insulting, but they're really harmless to others. Can I do those things? I can't think of any "rights" being violated.
"I challenge you to prove that by doing so, I am violating another persons rights."
Hah! You set up this phony criteria, then you challenge me to prove it's violated? Put away that strawman for another day.
Our laws are not limited to regulating behavior that violate other's rights. They never were. No nation or society in the history of the world has ever limited their laws to regulating behavior that violate other's rights.
Yet this is your new standard? Why?
"and through ratification fell upon the states to adapt as well."
Now you're just making things up. The states, Congress and the courts acted as though they didn't. How were they all able to get away with that for 150 years?
"Considering that search warrants came about due to court cases and not outlined in the Constitution, your example is flawed."
My example is spot on. The U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Code words for a "living" constitution.
"You get the idea, I'm sure...."
Yes, that you're spreading sand and tap-dancing. I repeat, none of your quotes said quote-unquote "all the people".
Yes they do. And I'm sure we both agree that they do so illegally.
I'll ask again. What does that have to do with forcing a city to allow an armed citizenry? Why can't they decide to go unarmed?
Driving is a privledge, not a right. So, no you may not. A privledge may be revoked... not a right. See the difference?
Again, we are talking about restricting one right in conflict with violating anothers rights... not some sexual innuendo that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This is why I am firmly against abortion. Every person has the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Abortion denies that right every time. That is what I am talking about.
My owning firearm “A”, which is perfectly legal across the board for defense of my home, defense of the nation, hunting, recreational shooting, etc. is no different from my owning firearm “B”, which the government deems to see fit to deny to me in their infinite lack of wisdom. I reject this ideal for the fundamental reason that a firearm is an innanimate object without the ability to reason, think, or make decisions. The mind behind the device, the person is the motivation on how that item is used.
“Reasonable restrictions” is an affront to everything this nation was built on. It’s that exact kind of thinking that drove our forefathers to revolt against the English crown and unless that kind of thinking stops, it’s going to happen again.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or recreational shooting. Though I do enjoy both. The 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of freedom for every citizen in the US. Anyone wanting to restrict that right by any means or reason is suspect and should be viewed cautiously as someone who would see our nation fall.
Something you may not realize is that gun control under any name is racist to the core. If you look at the history of gun control, it was founded upon keeping a social class structure in place... basically keeping the minorities in their place.
Personally I find THIS offensive and unacceptable. Reasonable restrictions such as bans on certain types of firearms (so called saturday night specials, “assault weapons”, etc.) are specifically aimed at harming the citizens... not stopping crime or for safety.
Let me address something else that nobody seems to give a rats behind about. Since 1968 the number of firearms inventors has gone way down. No new innovative technology has been brought forth in decades. Everything out there now is based on old technology. This is true in most nations around the world. BUT, since firearms restrictions were loosened in Russia, three new innovative designs have come out. In South Korea, a sewing machine repairman invented what is probably the most advanced small arm in history. South Korea has denied the technology to us... So, we are no longer the leader in firearms technology but countries that we cannot count on are. The BATFE has made it their mission to destroy this nation. People like Sterling Nixon who liked to manufacture evidence (US v Kwan), entrap law abiding citizens (US v Glover), and use economic siege against lawful businesses (US v Wrenn) in an effort to strangle the US market on lawful firearms isn’t helping.
Thankfully, some people like Parker in Parker v District of Columbia are able to eliminate some of the unconstitutional crap that has been put on the books.
I go back to my original comment. Be careful what you wish for... the unintended consequenses might be quite painful.
Mike
" 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 our resident 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 can persuade their members to disarm themselves; but they do not have the power to implement that stupidity in local or state law.
Communities are constitutionally limited to enacting reasonable regulations on behaviors that violate others rights.
Our laws are not limited to regulating behavior that violate other's rights. They never were. No nation or society in the history of the world has ever limited their laws to regulating behavior that violate other's rights.
Our Republican Form of Government guarantees exactly that in the Constitution as Amended. [see the 14th]
Can I make love to my girlfriend in a public park at noon? Can I walk around nude? Can I masturbate on a park bench? Can I walk around using foul language (at no one in particular)
No. - Reasonable regulations have been enacted, conforming to both community standards and our Law of the Land, that can charge you with the misdemeanor of disturbing the peace. - 30 days in the cooler might cure you of your masturbatory/sexual problems. - But I doubt it. You may need long term hospitalization.
" - Liberty is — and has always been — the properly defined exercise of freedom that does not violate the rights of others.
Your right to liberty is not violated by restrictions on your freedom to rape and murder, because you have no such right in the first place.
This is not to say that liberty may never be regulated (as opposed to being prohibited outright). It is only to say that the existence of a right to liberty places a burden on the government to justify any regulations of liberty as necessary and proper.
Wrongful behavior that violates the rights of others may justly be regulated without violating liberty rights — though "wrongful" does not equal "immoral."
R. Barnett
Your circular reasoning is making me dizzy.
First you claim that the "people" in the Second Amendment is a collective consisting of only the militia.
Then you end up using as support the quote from the Virginia Constitution: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State".
But the full quote is as follows: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Here was a perfect opportunity to protect the right of the militia, composed of the body of the people, to keep and bear arms. BUT IT DIDN'T. Whatever the "body of the people" consisted of which formed the militia, that is not whose right to keep and bear arms was protected.
The reason I asked about the 85-year-old woman's protection in Virginia, is because it is presently enforceable by her in the courts of Virginia. Yet the protection has remained virtually the same since the founding of our nation. Do you think extending the vote to woman included protection for their right to keep and bear arms? Was it the Fourteenth Amendment which extended state protection of the right to keep and bear arms to women? Or is there absolutely no evidence whatever that the language used in the Virginia Constitution does and always has protected the right of women to keep and bear arms?
I most certainly do not know what you mean, if you use the "collective right" nonsense to refer to anything other than the ignorant claims by tyrannical courts that no individual has standing to challenge gun laws using their protection which is explicit in the Second Amendment.
You persisted in previous discussions to insist that the Supreme Court's Miller decision could free Miller and yet not be an "individual right" decision. You persisted in trying to claim that it was the shotgun that was protected. Words have meaning. You can't just adopt any meaning you want.
Code words for a "living" constitution.
Well, you're the one who used the word "change", as in, "If the definition of "the people" changed, then it was easy to implement." I've told you, these were prescient men who had a remarkably good grip on having a vision of the future under the new, untested, unprecedented form of government. They knew growth of their idea was inevitable, but still had to be cognizant of political sensibilities at that time.
"You get the idea, I'm sure...."
Yes, that you're spreading sand and tap-dancing. I repeat, none of your quotes said quote-unquote "all the people".
Well, if "whole people" and "whole body of people" doesn't mean "all the people" then what does it mean? I guess words no longer mean what they once did...
If you're going to call me on this pedantic point to make your case, then you've already lost it.
In which case, see you on the next go-around!
CA....
Great response fight_truth_decay, It says it all.
Like the Freedom of Speech, there may be certain reasonable limits placed upon any right, but banning guns and keeping law-abiding citizens from owning them and using them are not.
As to “understanding the Second Amendment” one need only read a good on early American history. All the background you need is right there.
A privilege is nothing more than a reasonably restricted right.
"A privledge may be revoked..."
Can I revoke driving privileges from all Mexican-Americans? You need to give this more thought.
"not some sexual innuendo that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand"
Just admit that your little theory about only regulating behavior that infringes on others rights is a dumb idea.
"My owning firearm “A”, which is perfectly legal across the board for defense of my home, defense of the nation, hunting, recreational shooting, etc. is no different from my owning firearm “B”,
A handgun and a machine gun are basically the same weapon? If they are, then what do you care if the machine gun is regulated and the handgun is not?
"reasonable restrictions” is an affront to everything this nation was built on."
Oh baloney. All of our other rights are reasonably restricted. You don't care. But when the second amendment is restricted, all of a sudden it's a government conspiracy to suppress the people.
Yes, in the current constitution. The 1776 Virginia State Constitution read (in full):
"SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
It protects an an armed Militia but says nothing about individual rights. That was what you asked for. That was what I gave you. Address THAT and quit playing your gotcha games.
"The reason I asked about the 85-year-old woman's protection in Virginia, is because it is presently enforceable by her in the courts of Virginia."
I've already agreed with you on that. But I thought you were interested in the definition of "the people" in the second amendment back in 1792? Not when it doesn't suit you, I guess. You'd rather discuss the 2007 version of the Virginia State Constitution.
Screw original intent and original meaning and even what the constitution says. You feel everyone's rights should be protected by the second amendment so therefore they are.
That’s rich... “A privilege is nothing more than a reasonably restricted right.”
Um, if it’s something that can be restricted, then you don’t have a right to it now do you? So... I guess it wouldn’t be a right now would it?
And yes, you could revoke an entire class of people from driving, it’s happened on several occasions based on age, physical or mental disability, legal status in the country, etc. AND if you look at that information, you’ll see that just like many of the gun control laws, those with criminal intent ignore them.
Nope, my theory is based on many of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and others.
Yes, I care very much about gun regulation... having been to many nations that do regulate firearms, I am deeply concerned with the intentions behind any gun control.
Our other rights are not restricted anywhere like our 2nd Amendment rights are. If they were, you wouldn’t be arguing on the computer over this as it would be restricted like machineguns are.
But I’ll end this by saying that I’ll agree to disagree with you. I pray that your vision of America never comes true as if it does, we will all suffer in the long run.
Mike
Our laws are not limited to regulating behavior that violate other's rights. They never were. No nation or society in the history of the world has ever limited their laws to regulating behavior that violate other's rights.
Our Republican Form of Government guarantees exactly that in the Constitution as Amended. [see the 14th]
Can I make love to my girlfriend in a public park at noon? Can I walk around nude? Can I masturbate on a park bench? Can I walk around using foul language (at no one in particular)
No. - Reasonable regulations have been enacted, conforming to both community standards and our Law of the Land, that can charge you with the misdemeanor of disturbing the peace. - 30 days in the cooler might cure you of your masturbatory/sexual problems. - But I doubt it. You may need long term hospitalization.
All of our other rights are reasonably restricted. You don't care. But when the second amendment is restricted, all of a sudden it's a government conspiracy to suppress the people.
Wrong, rational people do care when majorities use the "reasonable" dodge to restrict rights for political purposes. Gun control is the ultimate in people control.
A handgun and a machine gun are basically the same weapon? If they are, then what do you care if the machine gun is regulated and the handgun is not?
Yep, they both shoot bullets basically the same. - And we 'care' because giving govt's the power to prohibit one makes them think they can prohibit both.
Just admit that your little theory about only regulating behavior that infringes on others rights is a dumb idea.
Just admit that your little theory, - that laws are not limited to regulating behavior that violate other's rights, - is dumb.
When it comes to determining whether those regulations infringe on the the right to keep and bear arms, they will argue that it's a "collective" right, and the regulations only infringe on an "individual" right, which we don't have, so they can infringe on everything without having infinged on anything.
At best an 'awkward' choice:
"-- America's at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. --"
.- Claire Wolfe
Of course. Nor a "collective right" decision.
Miller was charged, under the NFA, with not paying the tax. He was not charged with possession of the shotgun. The case was whether the tax on the shotgun was constitutional.
The Miller court couldn't decide that until they knew whether it was a Militia-type weapon or not -- the implication obviously being that only Militia-type weapons are protected from infringement by the second amendment.
IF it could have been shown to the U.S. Supreme Court that Miller's sawed-off shotgun was indeed a Militia-type weapon, then the NFA would have been ruled unconstitutional, the charges dropped, and Miller freed.
The U.S. Supreme Court need not go any farther than that.
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.