Gun Rights and Presidential Politics

Townhall.com ^ | November 26, 2007 | Ken Blackwell

[Kaslin]

The debate over individual gun rights just has become a front line issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. The United States Supreme Court decision to hear arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. gun ban case, guarantees it.

In the District of Columbia, it is a crime to have a handgun. It also is a crime to have shotguns or rifles unless they are unloaded and disabled. Ordinary people cannot have a gun, even in their own homes.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the law as unconstitutional. The court said the Second Amendment does not allow a law like it because it keeps Americans living in D.C. from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Now the Supreme Court will weigh in on whether or not the framers of the Constitution actually bestowed a right to government over the people in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

The answer seems obvious.

The Bill of Rights details individual rights that government cannot take away. When the framers referred to the people, they meant the individual, not the government. Most Americans get it. Even liberal legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe get it when it comes to the individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. They believe the clear wording of the document favors the individual’s gun rights.

Though it seems to escape the mayor of D.C., Adrian Fenty, who thinks Constitutional rights can be legislated away. “It’s the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected,” Mr. Fenty recently said at a news conference. “We should have the right to make our own decisions.”

With nearly 100 million American gun owners and a fluid nominating process in both primaries, Second Amendment voters matter. In fact, their votes could be the deciding factor in the volatile Iowa and New Hampshire contests propelling the winner into the pivotal South Carolina and Florida primaries.

Second Amendment voters are strict constitutionalists and will be closely watching how the presidential candidates address the gun issue.

The president is sworn to uphold “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The duty to protect the Constitution and uphold the law requires a firm, clear belief one way or the other on the rights of Americans to buy and own a gun.

Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are staunch Second Amendment advocates and all oppose most restrictions on gun rights including D.C.’s. Rudy Giuliani favors some restrictions but opposes the D.C. gun ban. He thinks the Supreme Court should strike it down permanently.

Now let’s hear what Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards have to say. What do they believe the framers meant by the “people”? The answers will speak volumes about their views on a wide range of issues.

Over the past few years, a heated national debate has raged over what the Constitution says about presidential power, war, the environment, education, health care, the reach of federal power, affirmative action, abortion, and immigration.

The American people have the right to know how a presidential candidate would interpret the Constitution’s most basic tenet — the rights of individuals over government.

The former president of the National Riffle Association, Sandy Froman, recently explained the importance of the case and how it could impact Americans nationwide. The first Jewish-American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA, and a respected colleague, Ms. Froman has a very personal reason for her unwavering advocacy of individual gun rights. Nearly 25 years ago, she was the victim of a home invasion. In a recent column, Ms. Froman explained, “I learned first hand that the right of self-defense means nothing unless you also have the means of self-defense.”

Anti-Second Amendment advocates also understand the importance of the case. They hope the court guts the gun rights allowed in the Bill of Rights.

“We’re nervous,” president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, told the Washington Post. “Anytime you go to the Supreme Court, you could end up with all sorts of gun laws being called into question.”

Presidential candidates whose views on the Second Amendment have been questioned should step up and detail their position on this issue. Mrs. Clinton, and Messrs. Obama and Edwards should explain their views. Mr. Giuliani should explain more fully why he opposes the D.C. gun ban but supports other restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

The American people expect leadership. Part of being a leader is answering the tough questions openly and forthrightly. On this issue, the court will do the heavy lifting. The candidates’ views, however, will certainly leave a mark.

[padre35]

The case won’t be heard until March, with a decision expected anytime after May, this could be a big issue in Election 2008.

It could even spill down to the Senate and House levels.

If GWB can be praised for anything it is putting Roberts and Alito on the court, and his one appointment to the DC circuit was the key to all of this.

[Nathan Zachary]

"“We’re nervous,” president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, told the Washington Post. “Anytime you go to the Supreme Court, you could end up with all sorts of gun laws being called into question.”

That's because they are illegal. As it is, the gun laws in DC are draconian, even Canada isn't as bad as DC. Hopefully these attempts by gun grabbers to trample second amendment rights will be put to death once and for all, but you just never know with the level of corruption we have in the judiciary, and their hidden desires to destroy the constitution in favor of UN world courts and laws.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Guiliani can talk all he wants about opposing D.C.’s gun ban because he does favor such onerous regulation and restriction that it makes it all but impossible to exercise one’s GOD-GIVEN right for any person living in NYC. Of course, among the number of things on which Rudy is dead wrong, this is just one.

[Earthdweller]

Hunter scores A+ by NRA on pro-gun rights policies...(in case Hannity didn’t tell you.)

[Beagle8U]

“Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are staunch Second Amendment advocates..”

That is BS! Romney is a gun grabber and McCain is little better than a moderate RAT on the gun issues.

Fred and Huck are both solid defenders of the RTKBA.

[longtermmemmory]

I think it is telling that Thompson went to a true gun show and the others go to the posure “hunting trip”.

Even hillary did the 2nd amendment sports right trip. (or was that giuliani? they look alike, they dress alike, they even talk alike, it is hard to tell them appart...)

[MrB]

The left KNOWS that none of their agenda passes originalist Constitutional muster, and they don’t care.

The ends are all that matter.

[Still Thinking]

Though it seems to escape the mayor of D.C., Adrian Fenty, who thinks Constitutional rights can be legislated away. ?It?s the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected,? Mr. Fenty recently said at a news conference. ?We should have the right to make our own decisions.?

How do you even reason with someone like this? Collectivist a$$hole wants to take away other people's choices and justifies it by invoking people's right to make choices. Doh!

Should have been "It's the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected," Mr. Fenty recently said at a news conference. "We should have the right to make our own other people's decisions."

[MrB]

Yeah, how about when a state passes a ban on partial birth abortion?

Isn’t that the “will of the people” of that state?

Should the Supreme Court be able to strike down this decision?

/rhetorical

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, it seems to be the one thing (in addition to be willing to actually fight terrorism) that he’s done right. And when it boils down to it, it’s probably the most important thing he COULD do right.

[A Strict Constructionist]

I think the election could get really interesting if any of our liberal justices cite European laws in their opinions...an ovbious violation of their oath!

[MrB]

The election could get more interesting if the GOP adopted as part of its platform the impeachment of any federal judge that references anything but historic Constitutional texts (including their own feelings about social justice).

[Still Thinking]

Oh, no. Some rights are absolute. We’re just talking about self defense and insurance against tyrants here, so there’s no need to be too extreme in defense the RKBA. Now, a woman’s right to murder-by-vacuum her own unborn child, that we can’t mess with.

[Beagle8U]

“Yeah, how about when a state passes a ban on partial birth abortion?

Isn’t that the “will of the people” of that state?

Should the Supreme Court be able to strike down this decision?”

The RTKBA is protected and listed in the Constitution, abortion isn’t.

That should answer your question.

[Still Thinking]

In fact, the harder you have to conjure to find a given right in the Constitution, the more absolute we know that right is.

[MrB]

Of course you’re referring to the “emanations of the penumbra” argument that even leftist lawyers don’t take seriously.

[MrB]

The RTKBA is an uninfringeable right even if there weren’t a 2nd amendment. It just specifically clarifies it.

[padre35]

The Senate also could have moved more quickly to affirm GWB’s nominees during the phase after election 2006 until the Dhimmis assumed power.

I think President Bush does deserve some credit for his judges once the dopey Harriet Myers was politely rejected...

[William Terrell]

“It’s the will of the people of the District of Columbia that has to be respected,” Mr. Fenty recently said at a news conference. “We should have the right to make our own decisions.”

Well, no, you don't.

Article 2, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;