One for the Second

NRO ^ | 21 nov 07 | Timothy Wheeler

[rellimpank]

The American Academy of Pediatrics is using worn-out rhetoric.

It was the moment in high Court jurisprudence that gun banners everywhere have long been dreading: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear District of Columbia v. Heller. D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, and his gun-grabbing supporters, hope that the justices will reverse an appellate court’s decision to invalidate D.C.’s gun ban.

One of Mayor Fenty’s supporters is the American Academy of Pediatrics, soldiering on in its war on gun owners. The AAP has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of D.C.’s petition for the Supreme Court to hear its appeal. The AAP’s brief reads like a gun-control pamphlet, of the kind put out jointly by the AAP and Handgun Control, Inc.’s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence back in the 1990s. Changes in the political climate, and accumulating scientific evidence, have all but neutralized the public health antigun arguments. Other organized medicine groups who previously lobbied for gun control seem to have realized this. For some years they have been quiet on the issue. But the American Academy of Pediatrics is stuck in the 90s.

[snarks_when_bored]

Our Second Amendment should read as follows:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Whose idea was it to put that cockamamie explanatory clause in front of this beautifully clear and simple statement?

[USNBandit]

When somebody tries to tell you it's a collective right, ask them where else in the Constitution has "the people" been interpreted as a collective right.

I am concerned however that this court won't rule in favor of gun rights. The recent decisions regarding McCain-Feingold and Kelo vs. New London don't convince me that the libs on the court know how to read the Constitution.

Regardless of the outcome, the victory or defeat will likely be measured by the narrow or broad scope of the decision.

[snarks_when_bored]

When somebody tries to tell you it's a collective right, ask them where else in the Constitution has "the people" been interpreted as a collective right.

To a Derridadaist, such considerations are mere piffle. But, of course, Derrida is dead (and if that's a 'social construction', let the Lazarus games begin...).

[TLI]

Whose idea was it to put that cockamamie explanatory clause in front of this beautifully clear and simple statement?

Heck, that's nuttin. Check out some of the other proposed versions...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Then finally...

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

[devere]

I don’t know why everyone assumes the Supreme Court will uphold our 2nd amendment rights. Has someone been discussing the case with Anthony Kennedy?

[snarks_when_bored]

Well, it’s certainly the case that, while the Founders were smart guys, they weren’t inerrant.

[rellimpank]

—the people who wrote the Bill of Rights—

[snarks_when_bored]

—the people who wrote the Bill of Rights—

Dang, I could've had a V-8!

[CDHart]

Sounds like we could be in really deep trouble.

Carolyn

[neverdem]

I am concerned however that this court won't rule in favor of gun rights. The recent decisions regarding McCain-Feingold and Kelo vs. New London don't convince me that the libs on the court know how to read the Constitution.

That was before Roberts and Alito.

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."

[CDHart]

From your lips to God's ears.

Carolyn

[neverdem]

For some reason, I thought you would reply. Parker is a very well written decision.

[Still Thinking]

I’ll start taking my firearm safety advice from pediatricians when I start taking my kid to the shooting range to get his shots.

[Still Thinking]

Both Alito and Roberts replaced justices who voted on the right side in Kelo (not sure about CFR), so they haven’t moved the court to the right, at least on that issue. At least not by their own votes. Now if they are more persuasive and can pick up Kennedy, then maybe so.

[neverdem]

"Both Alito and Roberts replaced justices who voted on the right side in Kelo (not sure about CFR), so they haven’t moved the court to the right, at least on that issue."

Justices Affirm Property Seizures

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

COURT UPHOLDS CAMPAIGN REFORM

GWEN IFILL: Once again, Sandra Day O'Connor was the key -- in the 5-4 decision she was the fifth.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right.

GWEN IFILL: I thought it was also interesting that she's the only member of the court who is ever an elected official.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. Back in Arizona she was in the state Senate. So again, as you said, we see Justice O'Connor siding with the more liberal justices who were in the majority today in upholding this law, and that made the difference.

Alito replacing O'Connor definitely moved it to the right. Roberts replacing Rehnquist also moved it more to an originalist bent as Rehnquist sometimes voted with the liberals in his later years. I can't remember the cases. Look at the excerpt from Parker in comment# 1. Everyone seems to wonder how Kennedy will blow when Souter and Ginsburg are on the side of the originalists.

[supercat]

Whose idea was it to put that cockamamie explanatory clause in front of this beautifully clear and simple statement?

Such clause is what proves that the Second Amendment isn't about "hunting or sporting purposes".

What's missing is a declaration that civilian disarmament constitutes treason.

[snarks_when_bored]

Such clause is what proves that the Second Amendment isn't about "hunting or sporting purposes".

Yes, but the simple statement covers everything: no infringement of the people's bearing of arms, period.

What's missing is a declaration that civilian disarmament constitutes treason.

Perhaps that would work in a second, independent sentence...