Posted on 11/26/2007 5:24:25 AM PST by 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.
OK, I thought you likely were, but I didn’t want someone reading it later to think that top part was my comment.
I’m definitely third partying it if the GOP nominates Rudy McRomney.
He can’t be trusted even if he has voted correctly a few times on gun issues.( He is borderline insane IMHO)
I can’t see Rooty or Romney EVER voting correct on the issue.
All three are turds that need flushing.
Amen. Thompson seems to have come around since his lackluster RKBA performance in the Senate. His recent statements show a sincere change of heart.
Duncan Hunter has always been solid on RKBA. This puts him at the top of my list.
Ron Paul is unbeatable on the RKBA front from a policy standpoint, but has some serious flaws in his foreign policy and who he is in bed with with his campaign.
Huckabee? His socialist stance on medical care and taxes rule him out regardless of whatever his RKBA stance might be.
“I’m definitely third partying it if the GOP nominates Rudy McRomney.”
Me, too.
Fred has a good voting record on gun issues if you count real gun votes and not the silly crap GOA put out.
He has an NRA lifetime A rating.
Charlton Heston personally went to Tenn to campaign for him.
“No more gun grabbers. EVER...”
B T T T
“Ron Paul is unbeatable on the RKBA front”
Ron Paul has a few very real anti gun votes in his record.
The NRA is fine with a certain level of "infringement" in the name of capitulation and groveling. Their "A" rating only means that someone gave up something somewhere...
More than likely something that'll bite us in the arse later...
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. - L. Neil Smith. The Atlanta Declaration
Anything less violates the Second's prohibition on government action and diminishes the scope of our Rights.
Rudy, Mitt, Hucksterbee, McCain..........man have we got a pack of losers running for POTUS. Only Hunter and Thompson are decent, and Hunter never got off the ground. I’m for a Thompson Hunter ticket, and just hope they prevail.
Ron Paul..
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Protecting private industries is not a Federal Power. Waiting periods should be done away with entirely. Reducing them from 3 days to 1 is like the difference of being raped by 3 attackers or just 1...
“Protecting private industries is not a Federal Power.”
It sure is when its pukes like Rooty suing gun makers and dealers in other states!
This doesn't require more legislation from an emanation of a penumbra. That whole situation could have resolved itself by judges doing their job. And any judge not doing his/her job should have been impeached and removed from the bench.
Be that as it may, If they are being sued in a Fed district court its a Fed issue to vote on it.
Check the record and see how many times Paul and Kookcinish vote together on an issue.
He is nuts!
Stop right there please. If the judiciary is not doing it's job, it is either the Executive or "We the People"'s job to rectify the situation. There is no legislative power to "fix" the judiciary. Unless you found something in the Constitution I didn't know was there? Art 1 is pretty clear. Art 3 says judges shall only hold office during "good behavior".
I'd say allowing a harassment suit to go forward counts as "bad behavior". As does attempting to legislate from the Bench.
The Legislature trying to "fix" things normally does more harm than good. If such a path worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As noted, Paul is a Kook on the WoT. His pandering to the anti-war crowd and siding with the likes of Kucinich were his "jump the shark" moment for me...
The author must be on crack. Mitt, McLame and Rudy are ALL gun grabbers of the first order! The only time they ever turned their back on a gun law they figured somebody at the national level might be watching. McLame sponsored the Assault Weapons Ban and pushed it. BUT he came out in "favor" of the 2nd Amendment right after the Virginia Tech massacre. He knew somebody would be paying attention to this and hoped to score points with the political base. Sorry, we have long memories and they will include the unconstitutional perfidies of the candidates on this critical issue. Fred, Mike and Duncan (as well as Ron Paul even if he IS a whacko) are all on record as being very pro-gun. But I think that their stances on gun control is what is going to keep Mitt, Rudy and McLame from winning in the south and without the solid south no nomination and no win in the general.
Anyone want to guess how many on the Supreme Court try to twist the plain meaning of “the people” into something it isn’t?
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.